ESSAYS 


IN 


HISTORICAL    CRITICISM 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  .   THE  AUTHOR 
SHIP  OF  THE  FEDERALIST .  PRINCE  HENRY  THE 
NA  VIGA  TOR  .    THE  DEM  ARC  A  TION  LINE  . 
THE    PROPOSED  ABSORPTION   OF 
MEXICO,  184-7-1848  .  LEOPOLD 
VON  RANKE,  ETC.,  ETC. 

i 

BY 

EDWARD    GAYLORD    BOURNE 

Professor  of  History  in  Yale  University 


NEW  YORK :    CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S   SONS 

LONDON:    EDWARD   ARNOLD 

1901 


Copyright,  1901, 
BY  YALE   UNIVERSITY. 


Published^  September^  /go/. 


UNIVERSITY    PRESS    •    JOHN    WILSON 
AND     SON     •    CAMBRIDGE,     U.S.A. 


PREFACE 


THE  first  essay  in  this  collection,  The  Legend  of  Marcus 
Whitman,  although  bearing  the  same  title  as  the  article 
which  I  published  in  The  American  Historical  Review  last 
January,  is  substantially  a  new  piece  of  work.  In  Part  II 
the  material  contained  in  that  article  is  reproduced  and 
in  addition  the  testimony  of  the  sponsors  of  the  story  and 
of  their  supporters  has  been  subjected  to  rigorous  criticism, 
and  the  origin  of  some  of  its  peculiar  elements  has  been 
brought  to  light.  The  distinguishing  feature,  however,  of 
the  essay  as  published  here  is  the  full  presentation  of  the 
literary  history  of  the  legend.  It  is  my  hope  that  this  ac 
count  of  the  genesis,  diffusion,  and  wide  acceptance  in  the 
latter  half  of  the  nineteenth  century  of  a  narrative  about  a 
momentous  event  in  American  history  that  is  as  unhistorical 
as  the  legend  of  the  Donation  of  Constantine  will  prove  to 
be  a  serviceable  contribution  to  the  literature  of  historical 
criticism. 

The  circumstances  of  the  preparation  or  publication  of 
these  essays  are  indicated  in  the  footnotes,  except  in  the 
cases  of  the  short  paper  on  The  Federalist  Abroad,  which 
formed  part  of  an  Introduction  to  a  new  edition  of  The 
Federalist  in  the  Universal  Classics,  and  of  The  Beginning 
of  the  Seminary  Method  in  Teaching  History  which  was  con- 


viii  PREFACE 

tributed  to  The  Educational  Beview.  All  the  essays  have 
been  revised,  and  in  some  cases  slight  additions  have  been 
made. 

In  venturing  to  select  a  title  for  the  collection  which  is 
accurately  descriptive  of  only  the  first  three  or  four  essays, 
I  have  been  influenced  by  the  desire  to  indicate  precisely  the 
character  of  what  is  perhaps  the  most  distinctive  part  of  the 
book.  The  other  papers,  too,  if  not  strictly  essays  in  histori 
cal  criticism,  were  written  in  the  spirit  of  it  and  in  conformity 

to  its  methods. 

E.  G.  B. 

NEW  HAVEN,  September,  1901. 


CONTENTS 


THE  LEGEND  OF  MARCUS  WHITMAN : 

PART  I  PAGE 

Sketch  of  Marcus  Whitman 3  V 

His  Extraordinary  Posthumous  Fame 4 

The  Legend 6 

Its  Source 8 

The  Story  unknown  before  1864        16 

Put  before  the  American  Board 22 

The  Origin  of  the  Story 26 

Its  Diffusion 29 

Shown  to  be  unhistorical 36 

Barrows's  Oregon 40 

New  Life  infused 42 

Systematic  Propaganda 47 

Countermining 51 

Whitman  Day 52 

PART  II 

Real  Cause  of  Whitman's  Journey 55 

The  Sponsors  of  the  Legend  untrustworthy 61 

Later  Variations  of  the  Story 64 

The  Affidavit  of  Cushing  Eells 69 

Whitman's  Purpose  in  going  to  Washington 75   *y 

His  Visit  without  Political  Significance 79 

Genesis  of  the  Imaginary  Details  of  the  Alleged  Interviews  with 

Webster  and  Tyler 82 

Whitman  in  Boston  ;  the  Primary  Objects  of  his  Journey       .     .  86 

Whitman  and  the  Emigration  of  1843 89  ^^ 

The  Real  History  of  Marcus  Whitman 99  v 

NOTES 

Spalding's  Memorial 100 

Earliest  Printed  Version  of  the  Fictitious  Interview  between 

Webster  and  Whitman 101 


x  CONTENTS 

THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS  WHITMAN  —  Continued 

PAGE 
Elwood  Evans's  Summary  of  his  Conclusions  in  the  Whitman 

Controversy,  1884 104 

George  Catlin's  Account  of  the  Visit  of  the  Flatheads  to  St.  Louis  105 

de  Saint- Amant  on  Whitman,  1852 106 

Mrs.  A.  L.  Lovejoy  on  Whitman's  Ride 106 

Mr.  A.  L.  Lovejoy's  Account  of  Whitman's  Ride 108 

II 

THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF   THE  FEDERALIST 113 

The  Problem 113 

The  Authorship  of  Numbers  18,  19,  and  20 115 

The  Structure  of  The  Federalist 117 

Internal  Evidence  in  cases  of  Numbers  49-58 119 

Numbers  62  and  63 137 

III 

MR.  PAUL    LEICESTER    FORD  ON    THE  AUTHORSHIP 

OF    THE  FEDERALIST 149 

His  supposed  "  Syllabus  of  The  Federalist  " 154 

IV 

THE  FEDERALIST  ABROAD 159 

In  France 159 

In  Germany  and  South  America 161 

V 

MADISON'S  STUDIES  IN  THE    HISTORY  OF    FEDERAL 

GOVERNMENT 165 

Early  Direction  of  his  Studies 165 

His  Authorities 166 

His  Use  of  the  Material 167 

VI 

PRINCE  HENRY  THE  NAVIGATOR 173 

The  Significance  of  his  Work 173 

His  Aims 174 

His  Method 183 

His  Activities  .  187 


CONTENTS  xi 

vn 

PAGE 

THE  DEMARCATION  LINE  OF  POPE  ALEXANDER  VI    .  193 

Precedents  .     .     .     ...     . 194 

The  Occasion .......  195 

The  Treaty  of  Tordesillas 202 

Magellan's  Voyage 206 

The  Congress  of  Badajos 209 

The  Attitude  of  England 214 

The  Attitude  of  France 215 

Results /   .     .     .    .     .     .     .     .    '.     .     .  216 

VIII 

SENECA  AND  THE  DISCOVERY  OF  AMERICA  ....  221 

Seneca  misinterpreted  by  Roger  Bacon 221 

By  All  Subsequent  Writers 222 

IX 

THE  PROPOSED  ABSORPTION  OF  MEXICO  IN  1847-1848.  227 

The  Mexican  and  the  Spanish  War 227 

President  Folk's  Policy 229 

Cabinet  Deliberations  on  the  Mexican  Question 230 

All  of  Mexico 233 

The  Cabinet  Discussion  of  the  Treaty   .     .     .  • 238 

The  Treaty  in  the  Senate 240 

X 

LEOPOLD  VON  RANKE 245 

History  in  the  Nineteenth  Century 245 

Ranke's  Early  Interests 246 

His  First  Teaching 248 

His  Contribution  to  Historical  Criticism 250 

His  Work  as  a  Teacher 253 

His  Ideal     .     ,     .     . 255 

His  Works        257 

XI 

RANKE    AND    THE    BEGINNING  OF    THE    SEMINARY 

METHOD  IN   TEACHING  HISTORY 265 

Precursors  of  the  Historical  Seminary 266 

Karl  v.  Raumer 267 

Ranke  on  his  Seminary        269 

Von  Sybel  and  Waitz  on  Ranke's  Seminary 273 


xii  CONTENTS 

XII 

PAGE 

FRANCIS  PARKMAN 277 

The  Opportunity  for  American  Scholars  in  History       .     .     .     .  277 

Parkman's  Early  Life 271) 

His  Self-training 280 

The  Oregon  Trail       281 

The  Conspiracy  of  Pontiac 282 

His  Novel,  Vassal  Morton        283 

His  Series  of  Histories 283 

His  Characteristics  as  an  Historian 285 

His  Fame     .     .     . 287 

XIII 

JAMES  ANTHONY  FROUDE 291 

Froude's  Environment  in  Youth 291 

His  Devotion  to  Carlyle 293 

His  Views  of  History 294 

His  Characteristics  as  an  Historian 296 


INDEX 299 


THE  LEGEND  OF  MARCUS  WHITMAN 


ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL  CRITICISM 

THE   LEGEND   OF   MARCUS   WHITMAN 
PART  I 

SIXTY-SIX  years  ago,  Marcus  Whitman,  a  physician  in 
Wheeler,  Steuben  Co.,  N.  Y.,  received  an  appointment  from 
the  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for  Foreign  Missions 
to  assist  the  Rev.  Samuel  Parker  in  establishing  a  mission 
among  the  Indians  of  the  Oregon  Territory.  Upon  their 
arrival  at  Green  River  (in  Wyoming)  Dr.  Whitman  decided 
to  return  to  enlist  more  help.  Early  the  next  year  he 
started  out  again  with  his  bride,  accompanied  by  the  Rev. 
and  Mrs.  Henry  H.  Spalding  and  Mr.  W.  H.  Gray,  whom  he 
had  induced  to  join  him  in  his  arduous  enterprise.  Eleven 
years  later,  in  November  1847,  the  energetic  and  faithful 
missionary  with  his  wife  and  twelve  other  persons  were 
massacred  at  their  Station  Waiilatpu,  now  Walla  Walla,  by 
the  Cay  use  Indians.  The  simple  chronicle  of  Dr.  Whitman's 
life  as  recorded  in  the  obituary  notice,  seven  months  later 
in  The  Missionary  Herald,  the  official  organ  of  the  Mission 
Board,  reads  as  follows  :  — 

"  Doct.  Whitman  was  born  in  Rushville,  in  the  State  of 
New  York,  September  4, 1802.  He  joined  the  Church  in  that 
place  in  January,  1824 ;  though  he  dated  his  conversion  from 
a  revival  m  Plainfield,  Massachusetts,  in  1819.  He  gave 
himself  to  the  missionary  work  in  1834.  In  February,  1835, 
he  went  to  Oregon  for  the  first  time.  Having  returned  the 
same  year,  he  was  married  in  February,  1836  ;  and  in  the 
following  month  he  set  out  a  second  time  for  his  chosen  field 


4  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

of  labor.  He  made  a  visit  to  the  Atlantic  States  in  the 
spring  of  1843,  being  called  hither  by  the  business  of  the 
mission..  He  was  a  diligent  and  self-denying  laborer  in  the 
the  work  to  which  he  consecrated  his  time  and  energies.  In 
the  last  letter  received  from  him,  he  described  at  considerable 
length  his  plans  and  hopes  in  regard  to  the  Indians,  show 
ing  his  interest  not  only  to  the  Kayuses,  but  in  more 
distant  tribes."  1 

Fifty-two  years  later,  in  the  most  careful  appraisal  of 
human  achievement  in  America  that  has  ever  been  made,  the 
voting  for  the  Hall  of  Fame  at  New  York  University,  Marcus 
Whitman  received  nineteen  out  of  a  possible  ninety-eight 
votes  to  be  ranked  as  one  of  the  fifty  greatest  Americans.  In 
the  class  of  missionaries  and  explorers  he  stood  fourth,,  being 
surpassed  by  Adoniram  Judson  with  thirty-five,  Daniel 
Boone  with  thirty-four,  and  Elisha  Kent  Kane  with  twenty- 
one  votes,  and  followed  by  Fremont  and  George  Rogers 
Clark  with  seventeen,  Houston  with  fourteen,  and  Meri- 
wether  Lewis  with  thirteen  votes.  Turning  to  the  voters  we 
find  Whitman  ranked  first  in  his  class  by  the  college  Presi 
dents,  receiving  ten  votes  from  twenty-five  voters. 

In  the  total  vote  this  simple  missionary  whose  career  was 
described  by  those  who  presumably  knew  the  most  about  it 
in  less  than  twenty  lines,  ranked  equally  with  Count  Rum- 
ford,  William  Lloyd  Garrison,  Wendell  Phillips,  and  James 
Munroe,  and  surpassed  Chief  Justice  Taney,  Senator  Ben- 
ton,  Salmon  P.  Chase  and  Winfield  Scott.2 

History  will  be  sought  in  vain  for  a  more  extraordinary- 
growth  of  fame  after  death.  In  Rome  there  is  nothing  more 
impressive  than  to  see  the  magnificent  column  of  Trajan  sur 
mounted  by  a  statue  of  the  Apostle  Peter  and  to  reflect  on  the 
historic  changes  that  made  suitable  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Romans  of  a  later  day  that  transformation  of  the  emperor's 
monument  into  a  pedestal  for  the  figure  of  a  simple  mission 
ary  of  whom  he  probably  never  heard.  But  centuries  passed 

1  The  Missionary  Herald,  July  1848,  237. 

8  H.  M.  MacCracken,  The  Hall  of  Fame,  New  York,  1901,  58. 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  O 

before  this  took  place,  and  even  the  simpler  transformation  of 
the  missionary  Peter  into  the  first  Bishop  of  Rome  required 
several  generations. 

But  in  the  case  of  Marcus  Whitman,  the  frontier  missionary 
in  less  than  half  a  century  is  transformed  into  a  great  historic 
figure  who  shaped  the  destiny  of  the  far  northwest  and  saved 
the  Oregon  territory  to  the  United  States.  Such  a  trans 
formation  can  be  accounted  for  only  in  two  ways  :  either  the 
historians  and  public  men  of  fifty  years  ago  were  unaccount 
ably  ignorant  of  an  epoch-making  achievement  of  their  own 
day,  which  has  since  become  known  through  the  discovery  of 
authentic  sources  of  the  history  of  that  time  at  once  explain 
ing  previous  ignorance  and  establishing  the  real  facts  ;  or,  an 
extraordinary  legend  has  sprung  up  and  spread  until  it  has 
entirely  overgrown  and  concealed  the  true  history  of  a  great 
transaction  in  our  national  life.  If  the  last  is  the  case  it 
throws  new  light  on  the  possibility  of  the  development  of  un- 
historical  narratives  and  renders  nugatory  so  much  of  apolo 
getic  criticism  as  is  based  on  the  belief  that  legendary 
narratives  cannot  grow  up  and  displace  the  truth  in  a  few 
years  in  an  age  abounding  with  documents.  For  if  such  a 
reconstruction  of  history  has  taken  place  in  the  United  States 
in  the  latter  half  of  the  nineteenth  century,  involving  an 
event  of  such  immense  importance  and  world-wide  publicity 
as  the  acquisition  of  Oregon,  no  principles  can  be  laid  down 
dogmatically  as  to  the  lapse  of  time  requisite  in  some 
earlier  period  for  the  development  and  spread  of  unhistorical 
narratives. 

In  this  case  of  the  story  of  Marcus  "Whitman  a  critical  in 
vestigation  will  show  that  it  is  the  second  alternative  which  is 
forced  upon  us.  No  new  sources  of  value  relative  to  the 
history  of  the  Oregon  question  have  been  discovered  and  the 
extraordinary  posthumous  fame  of  Marcus  Whitman  is  found 
to  rest  upon  the  unsubstantial  foundation  of  a  fictitious 
narrative  first  published  many  years  after  his  alleged 
achievement. 

When  a  traditional  narrative  is  subjected  to  criticism  two 


6  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

questions  present  themselves :  "  Is  it  true  ?  "  —  and  if  not : 
"  How  did  it  come  to  be  believed  to  be  true  ? "  In  other 
words,  "  What  is  its  origin  and  history  ?  "  The  answer  to  the 
first  question  is  of  especial  interest  only  to  students  of  Amer 
ican  history.  The  answer  to  the  second  on  the  other  hand 
will  be  not  only  of  general,  but  of  scientific  interest,  for 
it  will  trace  the  steps  by  which  the  imaginative  reconstruction 
of  history  strangely  distorting  the  relative  significance  of  men 
and  events,  has  slowly  but  steadily  pushed  aside  the  truth, 
until  it  has  invaded  not  only  the  text-books  but  the  works  of 
historians  whose  reputation  gives  their  utterances  a  certain 
authority.  It  will  also  illustrate  not  only  the  abiding  preva 
lence  of  the  uncritical  spirit  in  a  supposedly  skeptical  age 
among  all  classes  of  people,  but  also,  how  readily  a  fictitious 
narrative,  if  only  vivid  and  realistic,  and  sufficiently  reiter 
ated,  is  taken  up  in  the  face  of  living  witnesses  who  dispute 
its  truth,  and  of  perfectly  accessible  sources  which  demon 
strate  its  falsity. 

For  these  reasons  and  for  the  additional  one  that  an  exam 
ination  into  the  origin  of  the  Whitman  story  will  throw  light 
on  its  credibility  I  shall  investigate  the  second  question  first. 
To  enable  the  reader  to  follow  such  a  study  a  brief  outline  of 
the  accepted  story  must  be  given. 

About  the  first  of  October,  1842,  and  during  the  period 
when  the  Oregon  country  was  under  the  joint  occupation  of 
the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  while  Dr.  Whitman  was 
dining  at  a  trading  post  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  at 
Fort  Walla  Walla  the  news  comes  of  the  arrival  of  a  colony 
of  Canadians  from  the  Red  River  country.  The  assembled 
company  is  jubilant  and  a  young  priest  cries  out  "  Hurrah  for 
Oregon  !  America  is  too  late,  and  we  have  got  the  country." 
Whitman  realizes  that  if  Canadian  immigfation  has  really 
begun  the  authorities  at  Washington  ought  to  know  it, 
and  a  counter  American  immigration  ought  to  be  promoted, 
so  that  when  the  joint  occupation  of  Oregon  is  terminated,  the 
presence  of  a  majority  of  American  settlers  may  turn  the 
balance  in  favor  of  the  United  States  by  right  of  possession. 


THE  LEGEND  OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  7 

The  government  must  be  informed  as  to  the  value  of  Oregon 
and  its  accessibility  by  overland  emigration.  In  spite  of  the 
protests  of  his  fellow  missionaries,  he  immediately  starts  for 
Washington  where  he  arrives  March  2,  1843,  most  oppor 
tunely  to  secure  the  postponement  of  negotiations  looking  to 
the  surrender  of  Oregon  by  pledging  himself  to  demonstrate 
the  accessibility  of  the  country  by  conducting  thither  a 
thousand  immigrants,  which  he  does  during  the  ensuing 
summer.1 

The  essential  points  in  this  statement  are  the  cause  and 
purpose  of  Dr.  Whitman's  journey  to  the  East  in  1842,  his 
influence  on  the  Oregon  policy  of  the  government  and  his 
organization  of  the  great  immigration  of  1843.  Incidental  or 
collateral  assumptions  usually  accompany  this  statement  to 
the  effect  that  great  ignorance  and  indifference  in  regard  to 
Oregon  prevailed  in  Washington  and  generally  throughout 
the  United  States,  and  that  Dr.  Whitman  was  able  to  dispel 
the  ignorance  and  to  transform  the  indifference  into  a  deep 
and  widespread  interest.  In  both  the  essentials  and  the  ex 
planatory  details  the  story  of  how  Marcus  Whitman  saved 
Oregon  is  fictitious.  It  is  not  only  without  trustworthy 
contemporary  evidence,  but  is  irreconcilable  with  well 
established  facts.  No  traces  of  knowledge  of  it  have  ever 
been  found  in  the  contemporary  discussion  of  the  Oregon 
question.  The  story  first  emerges  over  twenty  years  after 
the  events  and  seventeen  years  after  Whitman's  death  and  its 
conception  of  the  Oregon  policy  of  the  government  is  that 
handed  down  by  tradition  in  an  isolated  and  remote  commu 
nity.2 

The  evidence  advanced  in  support  of  this  story  is  exclu 
sively  the  oral  testimony  of  a  small  group  of  people  who 
have  alleged  that  their  accounts  rested  on  Whitman's  words 

1  Cf.    Barrows'    Oregon,    160  ff. ;    McMaster,    With    the    Fathers,   307-310; 
McMaster,  School  History  of  the  U.  S.,  323-4,  and  the  other  books  noted  below. 

2  Its  first  appearance  in  a  formal  history  was  in  W.  H.  Gray's    History  of 
Oregon,  1792-1849,  Drawn  from  Personal  Observation  and  Authentic  Information, 
Portland,  Oregon,  1870. 


8  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

or  upon  their  own  recollections.  None  of  this  testimony  is  of 
earlier  date  than  1864,  and  nearly  all  of  it  is  subsequent  to 
the  publication  of  the  story  in  its  most  complete  form.  As 
much  of  it  repeats  the  gross  historical  errors  of  the  story  as 
originally  published,  it  is  difficult  to  escape  the  conclusion 
that  if  these  witnesses  derived  these  errors  from  the  printed 
narrative  they  probably  derived  other  features  of  their  testi 
mony  from  the  same  source.  If  this  is  made  probable,  it  does 
not  necessarily  convict  these  witnesses  of  conscious  dis 
honesty.  No  one  who  appreciates  the  fallibility  of  human 
memory  as  an  instrument  of  precision  and  understands  the 
subtle  influence  upon  the  mind  of  suggestion  need  be  con 
fronted  by  the  painful  dilemma  that  either  they  must  reject 
the  evidence  of  their  reasoning  powers  or  believe  that  vene 
rated  friends  have  been  dishonest.  Again  most  of  the  con 
troversy  in  regard  to  this  matter  has  involved  religious  and 
sectarian  interests  and  has  been  conducted  in  large  measure 
by  people  at  once  untrained  in  weighing  evidence  and  pro 
foundly  interested  in  the  final  judgment. 

So  far  then  as  the  oral  testimony  or  written  discussion  is 
found  inconsistent  with  the  historical  facts  such  inconsistency 
may  be  accounted  for  either  as  a  conscious  effort  to  deceive, 
an  unconscious  perversion  owing  to  suggestion  and  inaccu 
rate  recollection,  or  as  a  misinterpretation  of  the  evidence 
owing  either  to  ignorance  or  bias. 

The  original  account  of  Whitman's  journey,  its  causes, 
purpose,  and  results  was  first  published  in  a  series  of  articles 
in  The  Pacific,  a  religious  paper  in  San  Francisco,  in  the 
fall  of  1865,  contributed  by  the  Rev.  H.  H.  Spalding,  a  col 
league  of  Dr.  Whitman  in  the  Oregon  mission.1 

1  For  the  date  and  place  of  the  earliest  publication  of  this  story  I  am  indebted 
to  Mr.  William  I.  Marshall  of  Chicago,  who  has  made  most  painstaking  and  elabo 
rate  investigations  into  the  history  of  the  Whitman  Legend  (cf.  his  discussion  of 
my  paper  before  the  American  Historical  Association  at  Detroit.  It  will  be 
printed  in  the  Annual  Report  for  1900).  I  had  not  been  able  to  trace  the  story  in 
print  with  a  precise  date  earlier  than  the  Congregational! st  of  Oct.  5,  1866.  lam 
also  indebted  to  Mr.  Marshall  for  collating  the  text  of  this  narrative  as  it  is 
given  by  Spalding  in  Senate  Exec.  Doc.  37,  41st  Congress,  third  session,  with  the 


THE  LEGEND  OF  MARCUS    WHITMAN  9 

A  few  months  later  a  strikingly  similar  narrative  was  pub 
lished  by  W.  H.  Gray,  another  former  member  of  the  Oregon 
Mission,  in  the  Astoria  Marine  Gazette  in  July  and  August, 
1866.  Both  narratives  are  here  reproduced. 

THE  SPALDING  NARRATIVE. 

"  In  1841  no  missionaries  crossed,  but  several  emigrant  fami 
lies,  bringing  wagons,  which,  on  reaching  Fort  Hall,  suffered  the 
same  fate  with  those  of  1840.  In  1842  considerable  emigration 
moved  forward  with  ox  teams  and  wagons,  but  on  reaching  Fort 
Hall  the  same  story  was  told  them,  and  the  teams  were  sacri 
ficed,  and  the  emigrant  families  reached  Dr.  Whitman's  station 
late  in  the  fall,  in  very  destitute  circumstances.  About  this 
time,  as  events  proved,  that  shrewd  English  diplomatist,  Gov 
ernor  Simpson,  long  a  resident  on  the  Northwest  coast,  reached 
Washington,  after  having  arranged  that  an  English  colony  of 
some  150  souls  should  leave  the  Selkirk  Settlement  on  the 
Ked  River  of  the  lakes  in  the  spring  of  1842,  and  cross  the 
Eocky  Mountains  by  the  Saskatchewan  Pass." 

"DR.  WHITMAN'S  WINTER  JOURNEY,  1843." 

"  The  peculiar  event  that  aroused  Dr.  Whitman  and  sent  him 
through  the  mountains  of  New  Mexico,  during  that  terrible 
winter  of  1843,  to  Washington,  just  in  time  to  save  this  now  so 
valuable  country  from  being  traded  off  by  Webster  to  the  shrewd 
Englishman  for  a  '  cod  fishery 7  down  east,  was  as  follows :  In 
October  of  1842  our  mission  was  called  together,  on  business,  at 


THE  GRAY  NARRATIVE.! 

"In  September,  1842,  Dr.  Whitman  was  called  to  visit  a  patient 
at  old  Fort  Wallawalla.     While  there,  a  number  of  boats  of  the 

original  text  in  The  Pacific.  As  printed  above,  the  first  section  is  the  closing 
paragraph  of  the  ninth  of  a  series  of  eleven  articles  on  the  Oregon  Indian  Mis 
sions  and  appeared  Sept.  28,  1 865 ;  the  next  two  sections  are  from  the  tenth 
and  eleventh  articles,  which  appeared  on  October  19  and  November  9  respectively. 
The  last  article  is  reprinted  in  Gray's  History  of  Oregon,  289-291,  but  without 
giving  the  year  of  its  original  publication. 

i  From  Gray's  History,  288-289.    As  Gray  put  his  History  together  from  his 


10  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

THE  SPALDING  NARRATIVE  —  continued. 

Waiilatpu  —  Dr.  Whitman's  station  —  and  while  in  session,  Dr. 
W.  was  called  to  Fort  Walla- Walla  to  visit  a  sick  man.  While 
there  the  '  brigade '  for  New  Caledonia,  fifteen  bateaux,  arrived 
at  that  point  on  their  way  up  the  Columbia,  with  Indian  goods 
for  the  New  Caledonia  or  Frazer  Biver  country.  They  were 
accompanied  by  some  twenty  chief  factors,  traders,  and  clerks 
of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company,  and  Bishop  Demois,  who  had 
crossed  the  mountains  from  Canada,  in  1839  —  the  first  Catho 
lic  priest  on  this  coast;  Bishop  Blanchett  came  at  the  same 
time. 

"While  this  great  company  were  at  dinner,  including  several 
priests,  an  express  arrived  from  Fort  Colville,  announcing  the  (to 
them)  glad  news  that  the  colony  from  Bed  Biver  had  passed  the 
Bocky  Mountains  and  were  near  Colville.  An  exclamation  of  joy 
burst  from  the  whole  table,  at  first  unaccountable  to  Dr.  Whit 
man,  till  a  young  priest,  perhaps  not  so  discreet  as  the  older,  and 
not  thinking  that  there  was  an  American  at  the  table,  sprang  to 
his  feet,  and  swinging  his  hand,  exclaimed:  * Hurrah  for  Colum 
bia  !  (Oregon.)  America  is  too  late  ;  we  have  got  the  country.' 
In  an  instant,  as  by  instinct,  Dr.  Whitman  saw  through  the  whole 
plan,  clear  to  Washington,  Fort  Hall,  and  all.  He  immediately 
rose  from  the  table  and  asked  to  be  excused,  sprang  upon  his 
horse,  and  in  a  very  short  time  stood  with  his  noble  'Cayuse,' 
white  with  foam,  before  his  door ;  and  without  stopping  to  dis- 


THE  GRAY  NARRATIVE  —  continued. 

Hudson's  Bay  Company,  with  several  chief  traders  and  Jesuit 
priests,  on  their  way  to  the  interior  of  the  country,  arrived. 
While  at  dinner,  the  overland  express  from  Canada  arrived, 
bringing  news  that  the  emigration  from  the  Bed  Biver  settle- 
merit  was  at  Colville.  This  news  excited  unusual  joy  among 
the  guests.  One  of  them  —  a  young  priest  —  sang  out  :  '  Hurrah 
for  Oregon!  America  is  too  late;  we  have  got  the  country.' 

newspaper  articles  the  above  citation  may  safely  be  taken  as  the  account  pre 
sented  by  him  in  the  Marine  Gazette. 

On  August  11,  1866,  Gray  testified  under  oath  that  the  foregoing  account  of 
the  Walla- Walla  dinner  was  derived  from  Whitman  himself.    See  infra,  p.  32. 


THE  LEGEND  OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  11 

THE  SPALDING  NARRATIVE — continued. 

mount,  he  replied  to  our  anxious  inquiries  with  great  decision 
and  earnestness  :  '  I  am  going  to  cross  the  Eocky  Mountains  and 
reach  Washington  this  Winter,  God  carrying  me  through,  and 
bring  out  an  emigration  over  the  mountains  next  season,  or  this 
country  is  lost.'  The  events  soon  developed  that  if  that  whole- 
souled  American  missionary  was  not  the  '  son  of  a  prophet,* 
he  guessed  right  when  he  said  a  l  deep  laid  scheme  was  about 
culminating  which  would  deprive  the  United  States  of  this 
Oregon,  and  it  must  be  broken  at  once,  or  the  country  is  lost/ 
We  united  our  remonstrances  with  those  of  sister  Whitman,  who 
was  in  deep  agony  at  the  idea  of  her  husband  perishing  in  the 
snows  of  the  Kocky  Mountains.  We  told  him  it  would  be  a 


THE  GRAY  NARRATIVE  —  continued. 

'Now  the  Americans  may  whistle ;  the  country  is  ours  !'  said 
another. 

"  Whitman  learned  that  the  company  had  arranged  for  these 
Ked  Eiver  English  settlers  to  come  on  to  settle  in  Oregon,  and  at 
the  same  time  Governor  Simpson  was  to  go  to  Washington  and 
secure  the  settlement  of  the  question  as  to  the  boundaries,  on  the 
ground  of  the  most  numerous  and  permanent  settlement  in  the 
country. 

"  The  Doctor  was  taunted  with  the  idea  that  no  power  could 
prevent  this  result,  as  no  information  could  reach  Washington  in 
time  to  prevent  it.  '  It  shall  be  prevented,'  said  the  Doctor,  <  if 
I  have  to  go  to  Washington  myself.7  <  But  you  cannot  go  there 
to  do  it,'  was  the  taunting  reply  of  the  Briton.  'I  will  see.'  was 
the  Doctor's  reply.  The  reader  is  sufficiently  acquainted  with 
the  history  of  this  man's  toil  and  labor  in  bringing  his  first 
wagon  through  to  Fort  Boise,  to  understand  what  he  meant 
when  he  said,  '  I  will  see.'  Two  hours  after  this  conversation 
at  the  fort,  he  dismounted  from  his  horse  at  his  door  at 
Waiilatpu.  I  saw  in  a  moment  that  he  was  fixed  on  some  im 
portant  object  or  errand.  He  soon  explained  that  a  special 
effort  must  be  made  to  save  the  country  from  becoming  British 
territory. 


12  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

THE  SPALDING  NARRATIVE  —  continued. 

miracle  if  lie  escaped  death  either  from  starving  or  freezing,  or 
the  savages,  or  the  perishing  of  his  horses,  during  the  five 
months  that  would  be  required  to  make  the  onty  possible  circuit 
ous  route,  via  Fort  Hall,  Taos,  Santa  Fe,  and  Bent  Fort.  His 
reply  was  that  of  my  angel  wife  six  years  before  :  '  I  am  ready, 
not  to  be  bound  only,  but  to  die  at  Jerusalem  or  in  the  snows  of 
the  Rocky  Mountains  for  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus  or  my 
country.  I  am  a  missionary,  it  is  true,  but  my  country  needs  me 
now.'  And  taking  leave  of  his  missionary  associates,  his  com 
fortable  home,  and  his  weeping  companion,  with  little  hope  of 
seeing  them  again  in  this  world,  he  entered  upon  his  fearful 
journey  the  last  of  Oct.  1842,  and  reached  the  City  of  Washing 
ton  the  last  of  March  1843,1  with  his  face,  nose,  ears,  hands,  feet, 
and  legs  badly  frozen.  It  is  well  that  the  good  man  did  not  live 
to  see  himself  and  his  faithful  associates  robbed  and  their  char 
acters  slandered  by  that  very  Government  he  was  ready  to  lay 
down  his  life  for.  It  would  have  been  to  him,  as  it  is  to  me,  the 
most  mournful  event  of  my  life.  .  .  ." 

"DR.  WHITMAN'S  SUCCESSFUL  MISSION  AT  WASHINGTON." 

"  On  reaching  the  settlements,  Dr.  Whitman  found  that  many 
of  the  now  old  Oregonians  —  Waldo,  Applegate,  Hamtree,  Keyser, 


THE  GRAY  NARRATIVE  —  continued. 

"  Everything  was  in  the  best  of  order  about  the  station,  and 
there  seemed  to  be  no  important  reason  why  he  should  not  go. 
A.  L.  Lovejoy,  Esq.,  had  a  few  days  before  arrived  with  the 
immigration.  It  was  proposed  that  he  should  accompany  the 
Doctor,  which  he  consented  to  do,  and  in  twenty-four  hours'  time 
they  were  well  mounted  and  on  their  way  to  the  States.  They 
reached  Fort  Hall  all  safe ;  kept  south  into  Taos  and  thence  to 
Bent's  Fort,  on  the  Arkansas  River,  when  Mr.  Lovejoy  became 

1  In  the  republication  of  this  narrative  in  Exec.  Doc.  37,  and  in  all  other 
repetitions,  the  precise  date  of  Whitman's  arrival  in  Washington  is  given  as 
the  2d  or  3d  of  March,  obviously  for  the  purpose  of  getting  him  there  before 
the  adjournment  of  Congress. 


THE  LEGEND  OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  13 

THE  SPALDING  NARRATIVE  —  continued. 

and  others  —  who  had  once  made  calculations  to  coine  to  Oregon, 
had  abandoned  the  idea  because  of  the  representations  from 
Washington  that  every  attempt  to  take  wagons  and  ox  teams 
through  the  Kocky  Mountains  and  Blue  Mountains  to  the  Co 
lumbia  had  failed.  Dr.  Whitman  saw  at  once  what  the  stopping 
of  wagons  at  Fort  Hall  every  year  meant.  The  representations 
purported  to  come  from  Secretary  Webster,  but  really  from  Gov 
ernor  Simpson,  who,  magnifying  the  statements  of  his  chief 
trader,  Grant,  at  Fort  Hall  declared  the  Americans  must  be  go 
ing  mad,  from  their  repeated  fruitless  attempts  to  take  wagons 
and  teams  through  the  impassable  regions  of  the  Columbia,  and 
that  the  women  and  children  of  those  wild  fanatics  had  been 
saved  from  a  terrible  death  only  by  the  repeated  and  philan 
thropic  labors  of  Mr.  Grant,  at  Fort  Hall,  in  furnishing  them 
with  horses.  The  doctor  told  these  men  as  he  met  them  that  his 
only  object  in  crossing  the  mountains  in  the  dead  of  the  winter,  at 
the  risk  of  his  life,  and  through  untold  sufferings,  was  to  take 
back  an  American  emigration  that  summer  through  the  mountains 
to  the  Columbia  with  their  wagons  and  teams.  The  route  was  prac 
ticable.  We  had  taken  our  cattle  and  our  families  through  several 
years  before.  They  had  nothing  to  fear,  but  to  be  ready  on  his 
return.  The  stopping  of  wagons  at  Fort  Hall  was  a  Hudson  Bay 
Company  scheme  to  prevent  the  settling  of  the  country  by  Amer 
icans,  till  they  could  settle  it  with  their  own  subjects,  from  the 
Selkirk  settlement.  This  news  spread  like  fire  through  Missouri. 
The  doctor  pushed  on  to  Washington  and  immediately  sought  an 
interview  with  Secretary  Webster  —  both  being  from  the  same 
State — and  stated  to  him  the  object  of  his  crossing  the  moun- 


THE  GRAY  NARRATIVE  —  continued. 

exhausted  from  toil  and  exposure,  and  stopped  for  the  winter, 
while  the  Doctor  continued  on  and  reached  Washington." 

"  Thus  far  in  this  narrative  I  give  Dr.  Whitman's,  Mr.  Love- 
joy's,  and  my  own  knowledge.  I  find  an  article  in  The  Pacific 
of  November  9,  from  Mr.  Spalding,  which  gives  us  the  result :  — 
'  On  reaching  the  settlements/  "  etc. 


14  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

THE  SPALDING  NARRATIVE  —  continued. 

tains,  and  laid  before  him  the  great  importance  of  Oregon  to  the 
United  States.  But  Mr.  Webster  lived  too  near  Cape  Cod  to  see 
things  in  the  same  light  with  his  fellow-statesman  who  had  trans 
ferred  his  worldly  interests  to  the  Pacific  coast.  He  awarded 
sincerity  to  the  missionary,  but  could  not  admit  for  a  moment 
that  the  short  residence  of  six  years  could  give  the  Doctor  the 
knowledge  of  the  country  possessed  by  Governor  Simpson,  who 
had  almost  grown  up  in  the  country,  and  had  travelled  every  part 
of  it,  and  represents  it  as  an  unbroken  waste  of  sand  deserts  and 
impassable  mountains,  fit  only  for  the  beaver,  the  gray  bear  and 
the  savage.  Besides,  he  had  about  traded  it  off  with  Governor 
Simpson,  to  go  into  the  Ashburton  treaty,  for  a  cod-fishery  on 
Newfoundland. 

"The  doctor  next  sought,  through  Senator  Linn,  an  interview 
with  President  Tyler,  who  at  once  appreciated  his  solicitude 
and  his  timely  representations  of  Oregon,  and  especially  his  dis 
interested  though  hazardous  undertaking  to  cross  the  Kocky 
Mountains  in  the  winter  to  take  back  a  caravan  of  wagons.  He 
said  that,  although  the  doctor's  representations  of  the  character 
of  the  country,  and  the  possibility  of  reaching  it  by  wagon  route, 
were  in  direct  contradiction  of  those  of  Governor  Simpson,  his 
frozen  limbs  were  sufficient  proof  of  his  sincerity,  and  his  mis 
sionary  character  was  sufficient  guarantee  for  his  honesty,  and 
he  would,  therefore,  as  President,  rest  upon  these  and  act  accord 
ingly  ;  would  detail  Fremont  with  a  military  force  to  escort  the 
doctor's  caravan  through  the  mountains ;  and  no  more  action 
should  be  had  toward  trading  off  Oregon  till  he  could  hear  the 
result  of  the  expedition.  If  the  doctor  could  establish  a  wagon 
route  through  the  mountains  to  the  Columbia  River,  pronounced 
impossible  by  Governor  Simpson  and  Ashburton,  he  would  use 
his  influence  to  hold  on  to  Oregon.  The  great  desire  of  the 
doctor's  American  soul,  Christian  withal,  that  is,  the  pledge  of 
the  President  that  the  swapping  of  Oregon  with  England  for  a 
cod  fishery  should  stop  for  the  present,  was  attained,  although  at 
the  risk  of  his  life,  and  through  great  sufferings,  and  unsolicited, 
and  without  the  promise  or  expectation  of  a  dollar's  reward  from 
any  source.  And  now,  God  giving  him  life  and  strength,  he 
would  do  the  rest,  that  is,  connect  the  Missouri  and  Columbia 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS    WHITMAN  15 

THE  SPALDING  NARRATIVE  —  continued. 

rivers  with  a  wagon  track  so  deep  and  plain  that  neither  national 
envy  nor  sectional  fanaticism  would  ever  blot  it  out.  And  when 
the  4th  of  September,  1843,  saw  the  rear  of  the  doctor's  caravan 
of  nearly  two  hundred  wagons  with  which  he  started  from  Mis 
souri  last  of  April  emerge  from  the  western  shades  of  the  Blue 
Mountains  upon  the  plains  of  the  Columbia,  the  greatest  work 
was  finished  ever  accomplished  by  one  man  for  Oregon  on  this 
coast.  And  through  that  great  emigration,  during  the  whole 
summer,  the  doctor  was  their  everywhere-present  angel  of  mercy, 
ministering  to  the  sick,  helping  the  weary,  encouraging  the 
wavering,  cheering  the  mothers,  mending  wagons,  setting  broken 
bones,  hunting  stray  oxen  ;  climbing  precipices,  now  in  the  rear, 
now  in  the  center,  now  at  the  front ;  in  the  rivers  looking  out 
fords  through  the  quicksands,  in  the  deserts  looking  out  water ; 
in  the  dark  mountains  looking  out  passes ;  at  noontide  or  mid 
night,  as  though  those  thousands  were  his  own  children,  and 
those  wagons  and  those  flocks  were  his  own  property.  Although 
he  asked  not  and  expected  not  a  dollar  as  a  reward  from  any 
source,  he  felt  himself  abundantly  rewarded  when  he  saw  the 
desire  of  his  heart  accomplished,  the  great  wagon  route  over  the 
mountains  established,  and  Oregon  in  a  fair  way  to  be  occupied 
with  American  settlements  and  American  commerce.  And 
especially  he  felt  himself  doubly  paid,  when,  at  the  end  of  his 
successful  expedition,  and  standing  alive  at  home  again  on  the 
banks  of  the  Walla- Walla,  these  thousands  of  his  fellow  summer 
pilgrims,  wayworn  and  sunbrowned,  took  him  by  the  hand  and 
thanked  him  with  tears  for  what  he  had  done."  l 

That  this  narrative  is  the  primary  source  of  the  Whitman 
legend  and  that  it  was  first  brought  before  the  public  in 
1865  3  by  Mr.  Spalding  are  abundantly  proved  by  both 

1  Cf.  Spalding's  later  and  more  compact  and  explicit  statement,  infra,  p.  100. 

8  7.  e.,  as  a  whole.  The  story  of  Whitman's  interview  with  Webster  Mr. 
Spalding  related  in  conversation  in  1864,  and  it  was  published  in  the  Sacra 
mento  Union,  Nov.  16,  1864,  from  which  it  was  reprinted  in  the  Dansville,  N.  Y., 
Advertiser  of  May  4,  1865.  This  version,  which  is  sometimes  found  in  the  popular 
accounts,  formed  a  part  of  the  remarks  of  the  Speaker  of  the  Oregon  House  of 
Representatives  on  the  occasion  of  the  presentation  to  the  State  of  the  tomahawk 


16  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

external  and  internal  evidence.  In  the  first  place,  although 
Mr.  Spalding's  statements  have  been  reaffirmed  or  disputed 
for  twenty  years  or  more  by  many  people  in  the  northwest 
professing  to  speak  of  their  own  knowledge,  during  all  this 
time  no  evidence  of  a  date  earlier  than  1864  has  been 
brought  forward  to  show  that  anybody  east  or  west  had 
ever  heard  of  it  prior  to  that  date.  Second,  upon  its 
original  appearance,  in  part,  in  1864,  it  was  related  on  Mr. 
Spalding's  authority ; 1  and  as  late  as  1894  the  Rev.  Myron 
Eells,  the  son  of  Gushing  Eells,  and  for  many  years  an 
indefatigable  champion  of  the  Whitman  story,  in  his  life 
of  his  father,  wrote :  "  Rev.  H.  H.  Spalding  was  about 
the  first  person  to  make  known  the  fact  of  Dr.  Whitman's 
going  East  on  a  political  errand.  Dr.  G.  H.  Atkinson  learned 
of  it,  and  believed  that  this  work  ought  to  be  set  to  the 
credit  of  missions.  He  said  so  publicly.  In  his  journey 
East  in  1865  he  told  the  secretaries  of  the  American  Board 
that  while  they  had  been  accustomed  to  look  upon  their 
Oregon  mission  as  a  failure  it  was  a  grand  success.  They 
were  very  skeptical  and  thought  that  many  extravagant 
assertions  had  been  made  about  Whitman's  achievement. 
Dr.  Atkinson  replied :  '  Write  to  Dr.  Eells,  as  you  know 
him  to  be  careful  in  his  statements  and  are  accustomed  to 
rely  on  what  he  says.* "  2 

That  the  story  was  new  in  1864-5  has  been  so  positively 
denied  that  it  will  be  necessary  to  present  the  evidence  of 
this  fact  in  some  detail.  This  will  be  done  by  reviewing 
in  a  series  certain  critical  junctures  at  which  if  the  story 
had  been  known  it  could  hardly  have  failed  to  receive 
mention. 

As  Dr.  Atkinson  was  the  man  who  first  brought  this 
story  to  the  attention  of  the  American  Board  and  was  most 

with  which  Whitman  was  killed.  It  is,  although  a  little  earlier  in  date,  not  to 
be  treated  as  a  part  of  the  original  source  of  the  story,  for  it  is  second-hand 
from  Spalding.  For  the  text  of  this  account  see  Note  B.  p.  101. 

1  See  p.  102. 

2  Father  Eells,  or  the  Result  of  Fifty-five  Years  of  Missionary  Labors  in  Wash 
ington  and  Oregon;  A  Biography  of  Gushing  Eells,  D.  Z>.,  Boston,  1894,  106. 


THE  LEGEND  OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  17 

persistent  in  giving  it  publicity  the  date  at  which  he  learned 
it  is  of  vital  importance  in  determining  the  date  at  which  it 
first  became  known.  Since  he  was  apparently  unremitting 
in  his  efforts  to  diffuse  the  story  as  soon  as  it  came  to  his 
knowledge  and  since  he  had  probably  the  best  facilities  of 
anybody  connected  with  missions  in  Oregon  for  hearing  the 
story  as  soon  as  it  began  to  circulate,  the  presumption,  in 
the  absence  of  any  contemporary  dated  evidence  to  the 
contrary,  is  very  strong  that  the  story  was  new  in  1864-5. 
Dr.  Atkinson  arrived  in  Oregon  in  June  1848,  a  little  over 
six  months  after  the  Whitman  massacre,  as  the  first  mission 
ary  of  the  American  Home  Missionary  Society.1  On  June 
13  he  had  a  conference  with  W.  H.  Gray  as  to  where  he  had 
better  establish  his  station.  June  21  he  arrived  in  Oregon 
City,  where  he  had  an  extended  conference  with  Mr.  Spald- 
ing.  In  Oregon  City  at  this  time  were  Gushing  Eells  to 
whom  Dr.  Atkinson  referred  the  secretaries  of  the  Ameri 
can  Board  in  1865  for  confirmation  of  Spalding's  narrative, 
and  A.  Lawrence  Love  joy  who  accompanied  Whitman 
across  the  mountains  in  1842  and  to  whom  Dr.  Atkinson 
appealed  for  evidence  in  1876.  Yet  neither  from  Spalding 
nor  Eells  nor  Lovejoy  did  the  young  home  missionary 
hear  a  word  in  1848  of  the  saving  of  Oregon  by  Marcus 
Whitman.2 

If  the  story  had  been  known  then  or  thought  of  by  any 
one  of  these  men,  could  they  have  helped  telling  it  to  D:-. 
Atkinson  and  could  he,  the  enthusiastic  young  missionary, 
have  helped  recording  it?  During  the  next  fifteen  years  Dr. 

1  Before  the  Oregon  treaty,  1846,  Oregon  was  technically  foreign  territory 
and  the  missionaries  there  were  under  the  American  Board  of  Commissioners 
for  Foreign  Missions. 

2  See  Doctor  Atkinson's  Journal  for  June  13,  and  June  21st,  1848,  and  Mrs. 
Atkinson's  Narrative,  in  Biography  of  Rev.  G.  H.  Atkinson,  D.  D.,  etc.,  com 
piled  by  Nancy  Bates  Atkinson,  Portland,  Or.,  1893,  116-120-121,  and  109. 

Mr.  Spalding  wrote  an  account  of  the  massacre  to  the  American  Board,  and 
another  to  Mrs.  Whitman's  parents.  There  is  nothing  in  either  about  Whit 
man's  political  services,  see  The  Missionary  Herald,  July  1848,  338-341  ;  and  the 
Transactions  of  the  Oregon  Pioneer  Association,  1893,  93-103. 

2 


18  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

Atkinson's  labors  as  a  home  missionary  took  him  at  one  time 
or  another  all  over  Oregon  and  Washington  and  brought  him 
repeatedly  into  contact  with  the  pioneers  and  the  early  mis 
sionaries,  and  had  the  story  then  been  known  to  any  of  the 
people  who  in  the  last  fifteen  or  twenty  years  have  alleged 
that  it  was  familiar  to  them  long  before  1865,1  Dr.  Atkin 
son  could  hardly  have  escaped  knowledge  of  it  during  these 
years  of  home  missionary  travel. 

Other  examples  of  this  universal  silence  prior  to  1865  may 
be  given.  Joel  Palmer,  an  Oregon  pioneer  of  1845,  recorded 
in  his  journal  under  date  of  Sept.  17,  1845,  that  Dr.  Whit 
man  and  his  wife  came  to  his  camp  with  provisions.  The 
following  is  his  account  of  the  visit. 

"  The  doctor  and  lady  remained  with  us  during  the  day ; 
he  took  occasion  to  inform  us  of  the  many  incidents  that 
marked  his  ten  years'  sojourn  in  this  wilderness  region,  of  a 
highly  interesting  character.  Among  other  things  he  re 
lated  that  during  his  residence  in  this  country,  he  had  been 
reduced  to  such  necessity  for  want  of  food  as  to  be  com 
pelled  to  slay  his  horse  $  stating  that  within  that  period, 
no  less  than  thirty-two  horses  had  been  served  up  at  his 
table."2 

This  comprises  all  of  Whitman's  life  that  Palmer  mentions 
in  his  diary,  and  as  he  had  other  interviews  with  Whitman 
and  with  Spalding,  before  his  book  was  published  two  years 
later,  this  silence  is  significant.  Spalding  himself,  the  author 
of  the  legend,  three  years  after  "  Whitman's  Ride,"  was  evi 
dently  unaware  that  Oregon  had  been  "  saved  "  to  the  United 
States,  for  he  prophesied  in  a  letter  to  Joel  Palmer,  April  7, 
1846,  that  Oregon  would  become  an  independent  republic. 
"  Others,"  he  writes,  "  following  in  their  track  [i.  e.,  of  an  "in 
dustrious,"  "  virtuous,"  "  Sabbath-loving  "  people],  learning  of 


1  For  these  testimonies,  see  the  art.  of  Mr.  Eells,  in  The   Whitman  College 
Quarterly,  Mar.  1898,  or  the  quotation  from  it  in  Prof.  H.  W.  Parker's  art.  in 
The  Homiletic  Review,  July,  1901. 

2  Joel  Palmer:  Journal  of  Travels  over  the  Rocky  Mountains  to  the  Mouth  of  the 
Columbia  River,  etc.,  Cincinnati,  1847,  57. 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS    WHITMAN  19 

this  new  world  and  finding  our  ample  harbors,  soon  this  little, 
obscure  point  upon  the  map  of  the  world  will  become  a  second 
North  American  Republic,  her  commerce  whitening  every  sea 
and  her  crowded  ports  fanned  by  the  flags  of  every  nation."  l 
The  letter  contained  nothing  about  the  supposed  crisis  in 
1842-43. 

In  1851  Anson  Dart,  Superintendent  of  Indian  Affairs  for 
Oregyn,  in  response  to  instructions  from  Washington  to  in 
vestigate  large  claims  against  the  government,  made  by  the 
American  Board  of  Missions,  for  losses  sustained  at  their  sev 
eral  mission  stations  in  upper  Oregon  at  the  time  of  the  mas 
sacre  of  Dr.  Whitman  and  family  and  others  in  the  fall  of 
1847,  started  on  a  tour  of  inspection  from  Oregon  City,  May 
30,  accompanied  by  Elkanah  Walker  as  interpreter.  June 
17th,  he  arrived  at  the  site  of  the  Whitman  mission.  His 
special  report  on  the  mission  losses  seems  not  to  have  been 
printed,  but  his  account  of  the  journey  says  nothing  as  to 
Whitman's  political  services  in  behalf  of  Oregon.  If  he 
had  heard  of  them  he  could  hardly  have  failed  to  note 
what  he  had  heard  in  this  general  report,  nor,  if  the  story 
existed  at  that  time,  could  he  have  failed  to  hear  of  it,  for 
he  was  attended  on  the  journey  by  one  of  Whitman's  col 
leagues,  Elkanah  Walker,  and  at  an  earlier  time  he  had 
had  under  his  direction  H.  H.  Spalding  as  Indian  Agent 
at  Umpqua.2 

In  1853,  Isaac  Ingalls  Stevens  was  appointed  Governor  of 
Washington  Territory.  He  was  enthusiastic  over  the  devel 
opment  and  exploration  of  the  region,  and  before  going  thither 
he  devoured  all  the  books  about  it  that  he  could  find,  and 
learned  all  that  he  could  by  correspondence  with  citizens  of 
Oregon  and  Washington.3  In  the  course  of  one  of  his  jour 
neys  he  passed  the  site  of  the  Whitman  mission  and  makes 
this  entry  in  his  diary  Nov.  5,  1853 :  "  Mr.  Whitman  must 

1  Ibid.,  173. 

2  House  Executive  Documents,  32d  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  II,  part  3,  472-481. 

8  Life  of  Isaac  Ingalls  Stevens,  by  his  son  Hazard  Stevens,  Boston,  1900,  I, 
298. 


20  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

have  done  a  great  deal  of  good  for  the  Indians.  His  mission 
was  situated  upon  a  fine  tract  of  land  and  he  had  erected  a 
saw  and  grist  mill."  l 

Again,  in  1856,  Joseph  Lane,  the  territorial  delegate,  who 
had  gone  out  to  Oregon  in  1849  as  Governor  of  the  Territory, 
eulogized  in  Congress  the  services  to  Oregon  of  Marcus 
Whitman.  "  Never,  in  my  opinion,  did  missionary  go  forth 
to  the  field  of  his  labors  animated  by  a  nobler  purpose  or 
devote  himself  to  his  task  with  more  earnestness  and  sin 
cerity  than  this  meek  and  Christian  man."  Gen.  Lane 
then  related  how  Whitman  devoted  his  time  to  teaching 
the  Indians  the  arts  of  civilization,  but  said  not  a  word  of 
political  services.2 

In  1858  Dr.  Atkinson  in  a  review  of  his  ten  years  of  labor 
in  Oregon  dwelt  at  some  length  on  the  usefulness  of  the  mis 
sionaries  in  that  region.  Among  other  things  he  says  :  "  We 
gave  our  influence  to  make  Oregon  a  free  state,"  but  not  a 
word  of  the  services  of  Whitman.3 

/  Even  more  striking  is  the  silence  of  Cushing  Eells  in  a 
j  brief  sketch  of  the  old  Oregon  Mission  to  the  Indians  and  a 
description  of  the  Walla  Walla  country,  published  in  The 
I  Home  Missionary  in  1860.  He  writes:  "In  the  autumn  of 
1836  Marcus  Whitman,  M.  D.,  with  Mrs.  Whitman,  together 
with  other  missionary  associates,  arrived  at  Fort  Walla  Walla 
on  Columbia  river.  —  Dr.  and  Mrs.  Whitman  stopped  among 
the  Cayuse  Indians.  And  commenced  their  labors  at  a  place 
since  called  Waiilatpu,  situated  twenty-five  miles  east  of  Ft. 
Walla  Walla.  —  The  missionary  work  was  prosecuted  rather 
steadily  among  the  Cayuse,  Nez  Percys,  and  Spokane  Indians 
till  1847.  On  the  29th  of  November  of  that  year,  Dr. 
and  Mrs.  Whitman  met  a  violent  death  at  the  hands  of 
the  Cayuse  Indians." 4  If  Cushing  Eells  knew  at  this  time 

1  Ibid.,  403.     James  G.  Swan  in  his  Northwest  Coast,  or,  Three  Years'  Resi 
dence  in   Washington  Territory,  New  York,  1857,  describes  the  immigration  of 
1843,  236-7,  but  is  silent  about  Whitman. 

2  Cong.  Globe,  34th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  part  I,  776. 
8  The  Home  Missionary,  Dec.  1858,  185. 

4  The  Home  Missionary,  March,  1860,  261.     The  passages  quoted  contain  all 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS    WHITMAN  21 

that  Marcus  Whitman  saved  Oregon  to  the  United  States 
in  1843  it  would  have  been  a  fitting  occasion  upon  which  to 
mention  it. 

The  only  evidence  that  has  been  advanced  to  show  that  the  I 
tk  saving  of  Oregon  "  was  attributed  to  Marcus  Whitman  be-  | 
fore  Spalding  published  his  articles  is  an  extract  from  a  book 
by  a  French  travellej^-de-SamkAmant,  published  in  1854,1 
and  this  evidence  is  secured  by  the  use  of  deceptive  phrases 
in  translating  the  passage.  This  writer  is  said  to  have  "  pub 
lished  to  his  countrymen  that  Whitman,  the  missionary,  was 
largely  instrumental  in  saving  Oregon  to  the  United  States."2 
These  words,  it  will  be  remembered,  are  the  language  that 
Gushing  Eells  used  in  1866  when  he  declared  his  belief  that  I 
Whitman  was  "  instrumental  in  saving  a  valuable  portion  of 
this  Northwest  to  the  United  States."  3  The  French  writer's 
words  are :  "  Le  Reverend  Whitman,  missionnaire  anabaptiste 
ame'iicaiD,  e*tait  venu  s'e*tablir  avec  sa  famille  panni  les  di- 
verses  tribus  de  Whalla-Whalla,  on  peut  aussi  bien  dire  au 
milieu  des  deserts.  II  avait  acquis  une  certaine  influence  sur 
les  Cayuses,  les  Nez-Perce*s,  les  Spokans,  etc.  Ayant  devance* 
la  prise  de  possession  du  pays  par  ses  concitoyens,  il  s'etait 
fait  agent  tres  actif  des  interets  ame'ricains,  et  n'avait 
pas  peu  contribue'  a  pousser  a  1'annexion;  mais  malgre* 
tout  son  me'rite,  il  n'avait  pas  compris  que  son  credit  et  son 
influence  ne  r^sisteraient  pas  to uj  ours  aux  effets  de  la  super 
stition  de  ces  races  sauvages.  II  en  tomba  victime  avec  sa 
famille.  Une  Epidemic  £tait  survenue,  et  comme  le  Re've'rend 
cumulait  1'art  de  gue*rir  le  corps  avec  la  prevention  de  sauver 
Tame,  et  que  plusieurs  cas  de  de*ces  foudroyants  e*garerent  ces 
esprits  malades  et  faibles  (ce  que  nous  avons  eu  la  honte  de 
voir  aussi  dans  nos  pays  civilises,)  des  doutes  s'eleverent 

that  is  said  of  Whitman  in  the  article.  In  the  June  number  of  The  Home  Mis 
sionary  in  1860,  "A  Former  Missionary"  described  the  Walla  Walla  country, 
but  passed  over  Whitman  in  silence,  pp.  31-32. 

1  Voyages  en   Californie  et  dans  I' Oregon,  par  M.  de  Saint-Amant,  Envoy e'  du 
Gouvernement  franqais  en  1851-1852.     Paris,  1854. 

2  J.  R,  Wilson  in  the  Whitman  College  Quarterly,  Dec.  1897,  46. 
«  See  p.  25. 


22  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

sur  la  droiture  des  intentions  du  docteur  Whitman,  encore 
plus  que  sur  la  porte*e  de  sa  science  m^dicale.  Bref,  il  fut 
massacre*  avec  sa  famille  en  novembre,  1847." l  I  have 
quoted  the  whole  passage  for  the  light  it  throws  on  its 
probable  source. 

It  is  to  be  noticed  in  the  first  place  that  this  account  char- 

/  acterizes  the  entire  period  of  Whitman's  labors  down  to  1847. 

I  It  says  nothing  about  the  year  1842-3  nor  does  it  give  any 
intimation  of  knowledge  of  the  details  or  the  general  features 
of  the  Spalding  story.  The  account  of  the  causes  of  the 
massacre  is  so  similar  to  that  given  by  Brouillet  in  his  pam 
phlet  2  that  one  is  led  to  the  intrinsically  probable  conclusion 
that  de  Saint-Amant  as  a  Frenchman  and  a  Catholic  derived 
his  information  either  from  Brouillet  himself  or  from  some  of 
his  missionary  colleagues.  The  assertion  about  the  tendency 
of  Whitman's  political  activity  is  hardly  more  than  a  natural 
deduction  from  such  statements  as  Brouillet  made  in  his 
pamphlet.  To  use  the  very  words  of  Eells  or  Spaldiiig 

i  which  were  the  product  of  the  legendary  representation  of  the 

'  Oregon  crisis  in  1842-3,  in  translating  the  words  of  Saint 
Amant  to  prove  that  he  was  familiar  with  their  contentions, 
and  that  consequently  they  were  matters  of  common  knowl 
edge  in  Oregon  in  1851-2  would  not  be  defensible  in  a  trained 
historical  scholar.3 

In  harmony  with  the  universal  silence  which  has  been 
found  to  have  prevailed  before  1864  in  regard  to  the  contents 
of  the  Spalding  narrative,  is  the  obvious  skepticism  of  the 
secretaries  of  the  American  Board  in  1865  when  Dr.  Atkin 
son  informed  them  of  the  political  results  of  Whitman's 
journey  east  in  1842-3.  In  the  twenty-two  years  that  had 

1  Saint-Amant,  26-7.     This  passage  is  translated  infra,  p.  106. 

2  Cf.  Brouillet  in  House  Exec.  Docs.,  1st  Sess.  35th  Cong.,  I,  pp.  16  £E.     On 
Brouillet,  sec  p.  28  below. 

3  President  Penrose  of  Whitman  College  did  this  in  his  widely  circulated 
reply  to  my  assertion  that  the  Spalding  story  was  never  heard  of  before  1865, 
relying,   I  have  no  doubt,  on  Dr.  Wilson's  translation,  without   ever   having 
looked  at  the  original  text.      See  his  article  in  the  Boston  Transcript  of  Jan.  21, 
1901. 


THE  LEGEND  OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  23 

elapsed  since  Whitman  appeared  in  Boston,  no  missionary  in 
the  hundreds  of  pages  of  correspondence  in  their  records  or 
in  personal  interviews  had  ever  told  them  the  story  of  how 
Whitman  had  saved  Oregon,1  and  hence  when  they  first  hear 
it  they  not  only  discredit  the  story  but  also  its  source. 

Dr.  Atkinson  then  requested  them  to  write  to  Dr.  Eells  as 
to  one  upon  whose  testimony  they  could  rely.  Accepting 
this  suggestion,  Secretary  Treat  wrote  on  February  22,  1866, 
to  Gushing  Eells,  who,  it  will  be  remembered,  had  been  a 
colleague  of  Whitman's,  asking  for  a  statement  of  the  results 
of  the  old  Oregon  Mission  work,  and  received  in  reply  a 
letter  dated  Walla  Walla,  W.  T.,  May  28,  1866,  in  which 
the  religious  and  educational  labors  of  the  missionaries  are 
reviewed.  The  following  are  the  essential  passages  relative 
to  Whitman's  ride,  and  their  dependence  upon  Spalding's 
narrative  published  the  preceding  fall  is  sufficiently  obvious. 

"  Dr.  Whitman  understood  with  a  good  degree  of  correctness, 
apparently,  that  it  was  the  plan  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
to  secure  this  country  to  the  English  Government.  Undoubt 
edly  he  felt  strongly  in  reference  to  this  subject.  At  that  time 
his  missionary  associates  judged  that  he  was  disturbed  to  an 
unwarrantable  degree.  The  result  has  furnished  accumulative 
evidence  that  there  was  sufficient  reason  for  determined  earnest 
ness  on  his  part. 

"  An  unyielding  purpose  was  formed  by  Dr.  Whitman  to  go 
East.  The  mission  was  called  together  to  consider  whether  or 
not  its  approval  could  be  given  to  the  proposed  undertaking. 
Mr.  Walker  and  myself  were  decidedly  opposed,  and  we  yielded 
only  when  it  became  evident  that  he  would  go,  even  if  he  had  to 
become  disconnected  from  the  mission  in  order  to  do  so.  Accord 
ing  to  the  understanding  of  the  members  of  the  mission,  the 
single  object  of  Dr.  Whitman,  in  attempting  to  cross  the  conti- 

1  See  the  statement  of  W.  I.  Marshall,  The  Whitman  Legend  in  the 
Report  of  the  /im.  Hist.  Association  for  1900.  The  Home  Missionary  published 
several  letter^  a  year  from  the  Oregon  country  every  year  between  1848  and 
1865,  and  m  not  one  of  those  letters  is  there  a  single  reference  to  the  Whit 
man  legend. 


24  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

nent  in  the  winter  of  1842-43,  amid  mighty  peril  and  suffering, 
was  to  make  a  desperate  effort  to  save  this  country  to  the  United 
States. 

"  On  reaching  Washington,  he  learned  that  representations  had 
been  made  there,  corresponding  to  those  which  had  been  often 
repeated  on  this  coast.  'Oregon,'  it  was  said,  '  would  most  likely 
be  unimportant  to  the  United  States.  It  was  difficult  of  access. 
A  wagon  road  thither  was  an  impossibility.7  By  such  statements 
Governor  Simpson  (the  territorial  Governor  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company)  had  well-nigh  succeeded  in  accomplishing  his  object 
of  purchasing  this  country,  not  for  a  mess  of  pottage,  but  a  cod 
fishery  !  Dr.  Whitman  was  barely  able  to  obtain  from  President 
Tyler  the  promise  that  negotiations  should  be  suspended. 

"His  next  object  was  to  expose  the  falsity  of  the  statement 
that  the  Rocky  and  Blue  Mountains  could  not  be  passed  by 
immigrant  wagons.  It  soon  became  known,  to  some  extent,  that 
Dr.  Whitman  would  accompany  those  who  would  attempt  to  go 
to  the  Columbia  that  season  in  this  manner.  The  fact  induced 
numbers  to  decide  to  go  who  would  not  otherwise  have  done  so. 
If  I  judge  correctly,  the  testimony  has  been  unvarying  and 
abundant,  that  the  success  of  the  expedition  depended  upon  the 
knowledge,  skill,  energy,  and  perseverance  of  Dr.  Whitman. 
Extravagant  language  has  been  used,  expressive  of  the  confidence 
of  the  emigrants  of  1843  in  his  ability  to  conduct  them  success 
fully  through  difficulties  which,  in  the  estimation  of  many,  were 
regarded  as  utter  impossibilities.  The  fording  of  the  Platte  with 
such  a  train  was  an  untried,  and  in  some  respects  a  perilous 
undertaking ;  and  yet  it  was  signally  successful. 

"  In  1839,  Rev.  J.  S.  Griffin  and  his  missionary  associates  trav 
elled  from  the  western  frontier  to  Fort  Hall  with  wagons.  They 
were  there  told  by  agents  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  that 
it  was  impracticable,  if  not  impossible,  to  take  their  wagons  to 
Walla  Walla.  Consequently  teams  and  wagons  were  exchanged 
for  pack  animals  and  fixtures.  In  1840,  Rev.  H.  Clarke  and 
other  missionary  laborers  performed  the  same  journey  in  like 
manner.  At  Fort  Hall  they  were  induced  to  leave  their  wagons. 
In  1843,  this  game  was  tried  again,  and  at  the  opportune 
moment  when  Dr.  Whitman  was  absent  from  camp.  On  his  re 
turn  he  found  some  weeping,  others  much  disturbed.  He  at  once 
comprehended  the  plot,  and  then  and  there  is  said  to  have 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS    WHITMAN  25 

addressed  them  as  follows:  —  'My  countrymen!  You  have 
trusted  me  thus  far;  believe  me  now,  and  I  will  take  your 
wagons  to  Columbia  River.' 

"  I  may  not  be  able  to  furnish  evidence  entirely  satisfactory  to 
others;  but  in  view  of  all  the  past  relating  to  this  subject,  —  of 
which  I  have  been  an  eye  and  ear  witness  since  August,  1838,  — 
I  am  prepared  to  say  that  to  my  mind  there  is  not  the  shadow  of 
a  doubt  that  Dr.  Whitman,  by  his  efforts  with  President  Tyler 
and  Secretary  Webster,  in  1843,  and  his  agency  during  the  same 
year  in  conducting  an  immigrant  wagon  train  from  the  western 
frontier  to  the  Columbia  River,  was  instrumental  in  saving  a  val 
uable  portion  of  this  Northwest  to  the  United  States.  Am  I 
extravagant  in  adding,  that  the  importance  of  this  service  to  our 
country  will  not  be  likely  to  be  overestimated  ?  When  the  iron 
track  of  the  North  Pacific  railroad  shall  have  the  two  oceans  for 
its  termini,  and  the  commerce  of  the  world  shall  move  over  the 
most  direct  route ;  and  when  the  latent  resources  of  this  vast 
region  shall  have  been  fully  developed,  there  will  be  a  theme 
worthy  of  the  best  endeavors  of  the  statesman  and  the  orator." 

Secretary  Treat's  comment  is  as  follows  : 

"  While  it  is  apparent  from  the  letters  of  Dr.  Whitman  at  the 
Missionary  House,  that,  in  visiting  the  Eastern  States  in  1842- 
43,  he  had  certain  missionary  objects  in  view  (of  which  Mr.  Eells 
may  not  have  been  cognizant),  it  is  no  less  clear  that  he  would 
not  have  come  at  that  time,  and  probably  he  would  not  have 
come  at  all,  had  it  not  been  for  his  desire  to  save  the  dis 
puted  territory  to  the  United  States.  It  was  not  simply  an 
American  question,  however ;  it  was  at  the  same  time  a  Protest 
ant  question.  He  was  fully  alive  to  the  efforts  which  the  Roman 
Catholics  were  making  to  gain  the  mastery  of  the  Pacific  coast 
and  he  was  firmly  persuaded  that  they  were  working  in  the  inter 
est  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  with  a  view  to  this  very  end. 
The  danger  from  this  quarter  had  made  a  profound  impression 
upon  his  mind.  Under  date  of  April  1,  1847,  he  said :  '  In  the 
autumn  of  1842  I  pointed  out  to  our  mission  the  arrangements  of 
the  papists  to  settle  in  our  vicinity,  and  that  it  only  required 
that  those  arrangements  should  be  completed  to  close  our 
operations/  " 


26  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

Mr.  Treat,  apparently  satisfied  with  this  deceptive  confir 
mation,  from  Doctor  Eells'  reply,  which  was  published  sub 
sequently  in  the  Missionary  Herald,1  and  from  the  statements 
Doctor  Atkinson  had  made,  prepared  an  address  on  "Early 
Indian  Missions,"  which  he  delivered  at  the  meeting  of  the 
American  Board  in  Pittsfield,  Sept.  27,  1866.  The  report  of 
this  address  in  the  Congregationalist,  Oct.  5,  1866,  is  the 
earliest  printed  version  of  the  Whitman  story  that  appeared 
in  the  East.  It  omitted  the  Fort  Walla  Walla  incident,  but 
narrated  the  fictitious  interviews  with  Tyler  and  Webster 
and  credited  Whitman  with  organizing  the  emigration  of 
1843. 

The  date  and  form  of  the  first  appearance  of  the  Whitman 
legend  having  been  established  we  may  inquire  into  the 
circumstances  of  its  origin  before  tracing  its  gradual  diffusion 
and  adoption. 

By  articles  III  and  IV  of  the  Oregon  Treaty  of  1846  the 
possessory  rights  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  of  all 
British  subjects  in  lands  or  other  property  were  to  be  re 
spected  and  the  lands  and  property  belonging  to  the  Puget's 
Sound  Agricultural  Company  were  to  be  confirmed  to  it  or 
purchased  by  the  United  States  at  a  proper  valuation. 
Settlers  encroached  upon  the  lands  claimed  by  these  com 
panies  and  the  Oregon  land  grants  were  also  in  conflict  with 
the  claims.  Much  annoyance  and  litigation  resulted  and  the 
only  settlement  possible  was  for  the  United  States  to  buy 
out  the  rights  of  these  two  corporations.  A  treaty  providing 
for  such  a  purchase  at  a  valuation  to  be  determined  by  a 
joint  commission  was  concluded  between  England  and  the 
United  States  in  July  1863  and  proclaimed  March  5,  1864. 
The  commission  began  its  labors  in  January  1865.  From 
May  30,  1865,  to  May  10,  1867,  the  counsel  were  employed 
in  taking  testimony.  The  claims  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  aggregated  over  $4,000,000  and  those  of  the 
Puget's  Sound  Agricultural  Company  over  $1,100,000.  Sep- 

1  Dec.  1866,  370-373. 


THE  LEGEND  OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  27 

tember  10th,  1869,  the  commission  awarded  the  two  com 
panies  $450,000  and  $200,000  respectively.1 

Many  of  the  old  settlers  in  Oregon  cherished  a  resentment 
against  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  for  real  or  fancied 
wrongs  and  the  thought  of  such  immense  claims  being  pre 
ferred  by  foreign  corporations  was  exasperating.  The  feeling 
was  intensified  by  the  belief  that  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
had  intrigued  against  the  interests  of  the  United  States  dur 
ing  the  joint  occupation.2  On  the  other  hand,  for  one  reason 
or  another,  the  most  of  the  land  claims  of  the  Protestant 
missions  were  forfeited  because  they  were  not  actually 
occupied  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  land  law.  The 
title  to  all  the  stations  of  the  American  Board  lapsed  in  this 
way  except  that  to  Waiilatpu,  where  the  occupants  had  been 
massacred.  In  1862  the  Board  put  in  a  claim  to  Lapwai, 
Mr.  Spalding's  station  in  the  Nez  Percys  country,  but  it  was 
disallowed,  and  he  devoted  years  to  the  effort  to  secure  a 
reversal  of  the  decision.  That  the  mission  claims  should  be 
rejected  while  those  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  were  rec 
ognized  by  the  National  Government  seemed  an  outrage  to 
Spalding.3  To  cap  the  climax,  just  about  this  time  it  came  to 
his  attention  that  an  attack  on  the  work  of  the  missionaries 
of  the  American  Board  had  been  given  an  extensive  publicity 
by  being  included  in  a  public  document. 

1  See  J.  B.  Moore's  International  Arbitrations,  I,  237-270. 

2  Cf.  Gray's  comment  on  the  award :  "  A  more  infamous  claim  could  not 
well  be  trumped  up,  and  the  men  who  awarded  it  should  be  held  responsible,  and 
handed  down  to  posterity  as  unjust  rewarders  of  unscrupulous  monopolies.     Not 
for  this  alone,   but  for  paying  to   the  parent  monopoly  the  sum   of   $450,000, 
for  their  malicious  misrepresentations  of  the  country,  their  murders,  and  their 
perjury  respecting  their  claims  to  it."     Hist,  of  Oregon,  213. 

3  See  his  frenzied  statement  in  some  resolutions  drafted  by  him  and  adopted 
by  the  Christian  Church  at  Brownsville,  Or.,  in  1869,  and  the  almost  equally 
excited  preamble  to  another  set  of  resolutions,  in  his  Early  Labors  of  Mission 
aries  in  Oregon,  56-59  ;  see  also  pp.  70,  and  78-80,  in  Senate  Executive  Doc.  87,  41st 
Cong.,  3d  Sess.,  1871.     This  will  be  cited  henceforth  as  "Executive  Doc.   37." 
The  claim  of  the  American  Board  to  640  acres  at  Lapwai  in  the  Nez  Perces 
country  under  the  act  of  Congress  of  Aug.  14,  1848,  had  been  advanced  in  June 
1862  by  Gushing  Eells  acting  as  their  attorney.     Lapwai  had  been  Spalding's 
station.    See  Executive  Docs.,  3d  Sess.  37th  Cong.,  II,  570-72. 


28  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

At  the  time  of  the  Whitman  massacre  Spalding  had  under 
gone  a  terrible  nervous  and  physical  strain  from  which 
apparently  he  never  recovered.1 

He  believed  the  massacre  had  been  instigated  by  the 
Catholic  missionaries,  and  this  belief  made  him  almost  if  not 
quite  a  monomaniac  on  the  subject  of  Catholicism.  He 
charged  the  Catholic  missionaries  repeatedly  with  having 
instigated  the  massacre.  These  charges  were  echoed  by 
others,  and  in  their  morbid  imaginations,  behind  the  scenes, 
as  the  concealed  prime  movers  of  the  tragedy,  stood  the  Hud 
son's  Bay  Company,  vindictive  at  the  loss  of  Oregon  through 
the  activity  of  the  missionaries.  A  fierce  controversy  arose 
whose  embers  are  still  smouldering.2  The  Vicar-General  of 
Walla  Walla,  the  Reverend  J.  B.  A.  Brouillet,  prepared  a 
reply  to  these  charges  which  was  published  in  New  York  in 
1853,3  and  later  in  1858  was  included  by  J.  Ross  Browne,  a 
special  agent  of  the  Treasury  Department,  in  a  report  which 

1  "  A  poor  broken-down  wreck,  caused  by  the  frightful  ending  of  his  fellow 
associates,   and   of   his   own   missionary   labors."     Gray's    Oregon,   482.      "  His 
nervous  system  remained  a  wreck  ever  afterward."    Mrs.  F.  F.  Victor,  River 
of  the  West,  Hartford,  1870,  409.     "  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Spalding's  mind 
was  injured  by  this  shock.     All  his  subsequent  writings  show  a  want  of  balance 
which  inclines  me   to  regard  with  lenity   certain  erroneous   statements  in  his 
publications.     I  find  in  the  Oregon  Statesman  of  August  11,  1855,  this  line:  '  H. 
H.  Spalding  a  lunatic  upon  the  subject  of  Catholicism  and  not  over  and  above 
sane  upon  any  subject.'  "     H.   H.  Bancroft,  Oregon,  I,  665,  note.     On  the  other 
hand,  Mr.  A.  Hinman  who  knew  Spaldiug  before  and  after  1847,  in  a  private 
letter  dated  Mar.  5th,  1901,  says :  "  The  statement  made  by  Professor  Bourne 
that  the  strain  occasioned  by  the  massacre  unbalanced  Mr.  Spalding's  mind  is 
without  the  semblance  of  any  foundation  whatever.     He  was  the  same  Spalding 
after  the  massacre  as  he  was  before,   truthful   and   reliable."    Of   Spalding's 
trustworthiness  the  reader  will  have  an  opportunity  to  judge  a  little  later. 

2  A  sketch  of  this  controversy  written  with  a  strong  Protestant  bias  and  in 
places  with  obvious  lack  of  candor  will  be  found  in  J.  G.  Craighead's  The  Story 
of  Marcus   Whitman,  Philadelphia,  1895,  86-101.     Gray's  Oregon  fairly  vibrates 
with  the  passion  of  it.     The  accounts  of  the  massacre  written  at  the  time  by  the 
missionaries,  may  be  read  in  Mowry's  Marcus  Whitman,  and  the  Early  Days  of 
Oregon. 

8  Protestantism  in  Oregon  :  Account  of  the  Murder  of  Dr.  Whitman  and  the 
Ungrateful  Calumnies  of  H.  II.  Spalding,  Protestant  Missionary,  by  the  Rev.  J.  B. 
A.  Brouillet,  N.  Y.,  1853.  Brouillet  had  saved  Spalding's  life. 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  29 

he  prepared  for  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  on  the 
Indian    War  in    Oregon  and   Washington  Territories.1 

Brouillet's  reply  was  temperate  in  tone  and  in  marked 
contrast  to  the  tremulous  passion  of  Spalding's  articles,  but 
he  made  assertions  about  the  attitude  of  the  Indians  toward 
the  Protestant  missionaries,  about  the  inefficacy  of  their 
work,  and  the  worldly  interests  which  influenced  them  which 
Spalding  and  his  missionary  colleagues  regarded  as  slanders. 
But  to  have  this  Catholic  disparagement  of  their  labors  dis 
tributed  as  a  public  document,  of  which  he  became  aware  as 
has  been  said  at  about  the  same  time  2  when  the  claim  to  the 
Lapwai  Mission  station  fell  through,  and  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company's  claims  were  recognized,  incensed  Spalding  beyond 
endurance  and  roused  him  to  ceaseless  efforts  to  overwhelm 
the  Catholics  with  obloquy  and  to  demonstrate  the  injustice 
of  the  forfeiture  of  the  title  to  the  Lapwai  Mission  Station. 
He  began  writing  and  lecturing  3  on  what  the  missionaries  had 
done  for  Oregon,  upon  the  work  of  Whitman,  and  the  mas 
sacre.  He  secured  a  large  number  of  affidavits  repelling  as 
false  Brouillet's  charges  and  induced  many  religious  bodies  to 
adopt  resolutions  drafted  by  himself  setting  forth  his  version 
of  Whitman's  achievements  and  the  radical  injustice  of  the 
treatment  accorded  to  himself  in  the  affair  of  the  Lapwai  sta 
tion.  These  labors  occupied  five  years,  and  in  1870  he  came 
east,  where  through  the  influence  of  William  E.  Dodge,  the 

1  Executive  Doc.  (House  of  Rep.),  35th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  No.  38.     Spalding's 
charges  are  quoted  on  pages  49-51. 

2  The  exact  date  is  uncertain.     Spalding  said  it  was  "  long  after  its  publica 
tion."     Exec.  Doc.  37,   5. 

3  Bancroft  says,  I,  657,  note  :  "  In  1866-67  Spalding  revived  the  memories  of 
twenty  years  before,  and  delivered  a  course  of  lectures  on  the  subject  of  the 
Waiilatpu  mission,  which  were  published  in  the  Albany  (Or.)  States  Rights  Demo 
crat,  extending  over  a  period  from  November  1866  to  February  1867."    But  the 
lectures  apparently  began  at  least  one  year  earlier,  for  in  one  of  them  printed  in 
the  Early  Labors,  he  says  it  is  eighteen  years  since  the  massacre,  which  occurred 
in  November,  1847.    Exec.  Doc.  37,  26. 

The  articles  in  The  Pacific,  it  will  be  remembered,  appeared  in  1 865.  The  Rev. 
Myron  Eells  informs  me  that  Spalding's  articles  extended  over  a  year.  He  has 
one,  No.  37,  which  appeared  in  January,  1868. 


30  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

Vice-President  of  the  American  Board,  he  was  enabled  to  get 
the  material  which  he  had  compiled  and  collected  in  defence 
of  Whitman  and  of  himself  published  under  the  title  :  Early 
Labors  of  the  Missionaries  of  the  American  Board,  etc.,  in 
Oregon,  etc.,  as  Executive  Document  37  (Senate),  41st  Con 
gress,  3d  session.1 

It  was  as  an  element  in  this  extraordinary  campaign  of 
vindication  that  the  legendary  story  of  Whitman  was  devel 
oped.  Nothing  could  more  effectively  catch  the  public  ear 
and  prepare  the  public  mind  for  resentment  against  the 
Catholics  than  to  show  that  Whitman  saved  Oregon  to  the 
United  States  .and  then  lost  his  life  a  sacrifice  to  the  malig 
nant  disappointment  of  the  "  Jesuits  "  and  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company. 

Some  of  the  heads  to  the  various  sections  in  this  collection 
may  be  quoted  to  show  its  range,  but  no  adequate  idea  of  the 
hodge-podge  can  be  gained  by  any  description.  One  must 
believe  it  unique  in  all  the  vast  mass  which  has  issued  from 
the  Government  Printing  Office. 

I.  «  The  Oregon  of  1834  "  ;  II.  "  The  helpless  condition  of 
the  territory  at  that  date  in  the  hands  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company";  III.  "Hostility  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
to  American  citizens."  IV.  "  The  early  Oregon  missions. 
Their  importance  in  securing  the  country  to  the  Americans." 
This  section  contains  the  chapter,  "  The  Martyr  Whitman's 
services  to  the  Emigrant  Route.  His  terrific  winter  journey 
through  the  Rocky  Mountains.  His  successful  mission  at 
Washington."  (This  chapter  contains  the  articles  from  The 
Pacific,  quoted  above,  on  Whitman's  ride.)  V.  "The  Whit 
man  massacre  and  the  attempts  to  break  up  the  American 
settlements."  VI.  "Who  instigated  the  Indians  to  murder 
the  Missionaries  and  the  Americans  ?  "  The  material  relating 
to  the  Lapwai  station  is  subordinate  in  amount  to  that  vindi 
cating  the  missionaries  and  will  be  found  on  pp.  58-59,  69, 
and  79-80. 

1  Once  printed  as  a  public  document,  the  evidence  and  testimony  in  behalf  of 
Spalding  could  be  utilized  effectively  in  renewing  the  effort  to  recover  the  mis 
sion  claim. 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  31 

More  than  once  it  is  directly  asserted  that  Whitman  was 
murdered  because  his  journey  to  Washington  frustrated  the 
policy  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company.  For  example  : 

"  There  is  abundant  proof  to  show  that  the  said  Whitman 
massacre  and  the  long  and  expensive  wars  that  followed  were 
commenced  by  the  abovesaid  British  monopoly  for  the  pur 
pose  of  breaking  up  the  American  settlements  and  of  regain 
ing  the  territory,  and  that  they  were  especially  chagrined 
against  the  said  Whitman  as  being  the  principal  agent  in  dis 
appointing  this  scheme."  l 

The  constant  reiteration  of  the  Whitman  story  in  Spalding's 
collection  of  materials  in  Doc.  37  emphatically  illustrates  the 
reliance  that  was  placed  upon  it.2 

,  Having  indicated,  so  far  as  has  been  practicable  in  the 
absence  of  explicit  testimony,  the  occasion  and  motives  which 
gave  rise  to  the  legend  of  Marcus  Whitman,  I  will  now  com 
plete  the  story  of  its  diffusion  and  acceptance.  In  the 
summer  of  1866  during  the  period  of  suspense  in  regard  to 
the  settlement  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  claims,  and 
while  the  counsel  were  taking  testimony  in  Oregon,  Mr.  W. 
H.  Gray,  the  former  mechanic  and  helper  at  the  Whitman 
mission,  published  his  version  of  the  early  history  of  Oregon 
in  a  series  of  articles  in  the  Astoria  Marine  Gazette.  These 
articles  were  an  intensely  bitter  arraignment  of  the  Hudson's 
Bay  Company,  and  were  later  incorporated  into  his  History  of 
Oregon?  In  one  of  them4  he  told  the  story  of  Whitman's 

1  Exec.   Doc  37,   42.     In  the  report  of  Dr.  G.  H.  Atkinson's  address  before 
the  American  Board  at  Norwich  in  1868  it  is  said  :  "  He  told  most  effectively  the 
story  of  the  manner  in  which  the  heroic  missionary  Dr.  Whitman,  who  was  sub 
sequently  murdered  for  the  deed,  made  the  journey  from  Oregon  to  Washington 
in  1842,"  etc.     The  Congregationalist,  Oct.  15,  1868. 

2  Cf.  for  example,  20,  23,  25,  42,  75-76,  and  78,  Exec.  Doc.  37,  41st  Cong.,  3d 
Sess. 

8  In  the  preface  to  this  work  the  reader  is  promised,  among  other  things, 
"The  American  History  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget  Sound  Agricultural 
Companies." 

*  The  Astoria  Marine  Gazette,  Aug.  6,  1866.  Cf.  History  of  Oregon,  315-6. 
Curiously  enough,  in  the  History,  Gray  preferred  to  quote  Spalding's  article  in 
The  Pacific. 


32  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

intercession  in  Washington  in  behalf  of  Oregon,  as  he 
declared  he  had  heard  it  from  Whitman  himself,  but  sub 
stantially  as  Spalding  had  narrated  it  the  year  before  with  one 
important  exception.1  Following  these  articles  in  chronologi 
cal  order  comes  Dr.  Treat's  address  before  the  American 
Board  at  Pittsfield  in  September,  and  the  publication  of  the 
story  in  The  Congregationalist,  October  5th,  from  which  it 
was  copied  by  the  New  York  Evening  Post,  and  in  turn  from 
the  Post  by  the  Portland  Oregonian  of  November  16,2  1866. 

1  The  nature  of  this  exception  and  the  character  of  Gray  as  a  witness  will 
appear  from  the  following  extract  from  his  deposition  under  oath,  Aug.  1 1, 1866, 
during  the  taking  of  testimony  in  the  Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget  Souud  Agricul 
tural  Companies'  case. 

"  Int.[errogatory]  29.  '  Are  the  statements  made  by  you  in  that  article  [in 
the  Marine  Gazette,  Aug.  6]  true  ?  '  a^ 

"  Ans.  *  I  think  they  are,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge^nd  belief.' 

"  Int.  30.  '  Did  Dr.  Whitman  tell  you  that  he  went  to  see  Mr.  Webster  and  Mr. 
Fillmore  for  the  purpose  stated  in  that  article  ?  ' 

"  Ans.  '  Dr.  Whitman,  when  he  left  his  station  to  go  to  the  States,  gave  me  the 
facts  as  stated  in  that  or  previous  articles.  On  his  return  he  visited  me  at  Ore 
gon  City  ;  he  gave  me  the  substance,  almost  verbatim,  as  near  as  I  can  recollect, 
of  that  article/ 

"  Int.  31.  '  Did  he  say  that  he  saw  Mr.  Webster  as  Secretary  of  State,  and  Mr. 
Fillmore  as  President  on  the  subject  ?  ' 

"Ans.  '  He  said  he  called  upon  them  both,  and  had  conversations  with  them.' 

"  On  being  cross-questioned  closely  as  to  Fillmore,  Gray  said, '  I  had  a  doubt  in 
my  own  mind  when  I  penned  the  article  whether  it  was  him  or  Tyler.' 

"Int.  38.  '  Did  Dr.  Whitman  inform  you  that  Mr.  Webster  stated  that  he  (Mr. 
Webster)  was  ready  to  part  with  what  was  to  him  an  unknown  and  unimportant 
portion  of  our  national  domain,  for  the  privileges  of  a  small  settlement  in  Maine, 
and  the  fisheries  on  the  banks  of  Newfoundland  ? ' 

"  Ans.  '  The  substance  of  that  idea  was  communicated  to  me  by  Dr. 
Whitman/ 

"It  is  subsequently  recorded :  '  The  witness  desires  to  state  that  since  testi 
fying  on  cross-examination  he  has  ascertained  that  Mr.  Tyler  was  President, 
instead  of  Mr. Fillmore,  at  the  time  of  Dr.  Whitman's  visit  to  Washington/  " 

Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget  Sound  Agricultural  Co.'s  Claims,  IV.  Evidence  for 
the  United  States.  Washington.  1867.  172-4  and  191. 

1  am  indebted  to  Mr.  W.  I.  Marshall  of  Chicago  for  the  information  that  Gray 
was  cross-examined  on  this  Whitman  matter  and  that  a  complete  set  of  the  doc 
uments  relating  to  the  claims  of  these  companies   is  in  the   State  Library  at 
Albany  where  I  consulted  them.    Again,  in  1883,  Gray  solemnly  affirmed  that  his 
statements    about  Whitman's  interviews  in  Washington,  in  his  History,  315-8, 
were  derived  from  Whitman  himself.     Eells,  Marcus  Whitman,  9. 

2  Gray's  Oregon,  480.     "  We  ask  in  astonishment :  Has  the  American  Board  at 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  33 

In  1868  the  Rev.  H.  K.  Hines,  a  Methodist  clergyman  of 
Fort  Vancouver,  introduced  the  story  to  the  people  of  that 
denomination  in  a  vividly  written  article  in  the  Ladies'  Re 
pository  of  Cincinnati.1  More  important,  however,  were  the 
efforts  of  Dr.  Atkinson  during  his  sojourn  in  the  East  in 
1868-69.  He  told  the  story  of  the  Oregon  Mission  and  of 
Whitman's  saving  the  country  to  the  United  States  with 
thrilling  effect  at  the  meeting  of  the  American  Board  in  Nor 
wich,  Ct.2  Later  he  addressed  the  Chamber  of  Commerce  in 
New  York,  through  the  influence  of  Mr.  William  E.  Dodge, 
and  the  Board  of  Trade  in  Chicago.3  The  significance  of 
Dr.  Atkinson's  advocacy  for  the  spread  of  the  story  at  this  time 
will  appear  from  the  testimony  of  Mrs.  Atkinson  in  regard  to 
her  husband's  activities.  "  He  there  took  the  opportunity  to 
try  to  establish  the  fact  of  Doctor  Whitman  going  to  Wash 
ington  in  midwinter  to  save  Oregon  to  the  United  States. 
In  Oregon  at  that  time  very  few  admitted  this,  but  Doctor 
Atkinson  was  firm  in  the  belief  of  this  important  fact,  and 
urged  Doctor  Whitman's  associate  missionaries  to  speak  out 
to  establish  it,  but  there  was  great  opposition  to  the  idea, 
especially  by  enemies  and  non-sympathizers  with  mission 
aries."4  The  opposition  to  the  story  in  Oregon  evidently 
prompted  Gray  to  appeal  to  A.  Lawrence  Lovejoy,  who 
accompanied  Whitman  on  his  journey,  for  confirmation,  but 

last  opened  its  ears,  and  allowed  a  statement  of   that  noble  martyr's  efforts  to 
save  Oregon  to  his  country  to  be  made  upon  its  record  ?  " 

1  See  Extracts  in  Exec.  Doc.  37,  pp.  24-25.     Thirty  years  later,  in  his  Mis 
sionary  History  of  the  Pacific  North- West,  469  (Portland,  1899),  Mr.  Hines  givos 
an  account  of  Whitman's  journey  in  pretty  exact  accordance  with  the  facts,  the 
only  fabulous  incident  being  the  alleged  report,  by  the  emigration  of  1 842,  that 
the  United  States  would  probably  relinquish  Oregon  to  England. 

2  The  Congregationalist,  Oct.  15,  1868.     The  address  in  full  was  printed  in  the 
Missionary  Herald,  Mar.  1869,  76-82. 

8  Biography  of  G.  H.  Atkinson,  pp.  147  and  500-501.  The  New  York  ad 
dress  is  published  in  the  Biography,  286-299.  It  was  issued  in  a  pamphlet  at  the 
time  by  John  W.  Amerman,  New  York. 

4  Biography,  147.  The  reader  will  note  that  three  years  after  the  publication 
of  the  story  of  "Whitman's  ride  "  to  save  Oregon "  "  very  few "  in  Oregon 
believed  it. 

3 


34  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

Love  joy's  reply  failed  to  substantiate  the  essentials  of  the 
Spalding  story.1 

Among  the  other  publications  of  1869  which  gave  currency 
to  the  story  may  be  mentioned  Mrs.  F.  F.  Victor's  The  River 
of  the  West,  an  article  by  her  in  the  Overland  magazine,2  and 
Dr.  Rufus  Anderson's  Foreign  Missions,  their  Relations  and 
their  Claims? 

The  first  elaborate  presentation  in  book  form  of  the  legend 
of  Marcus  Whitman  will  be  found  in  Gray's  History  of  Oregon, 
Portland,  1870.  William  H.  Gray,  as  has  been  said,  was  origi 
nally  the  mechanic  and  helper  at  the  Whitman  mission,  from 
which  he  resigned  in  September  1842.  As  a  contemporary  of 
Whitman,  his  testimony  was  naturally  regarded  from  the  first 
as  an  important  corroboration  of  Spalding's  narrative.  His 
account,  although  professedly  based  upon  his  own  knowledge 
and  interviews  with  Whitman,  was  derived  from  Spalding, 
whose  articles  in  the  Pacific  he  quotes.  Like  Spalding,  Gray 
was  equally  vindictive  towards  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company 
and  the  Catholics,  and  made  repeated  use  of  the  Whitman 
story  to  create  public  opinion  against  them  both.4 

In  the  following  year,  1871,  Spalding's  compilation,  Early 
Labors  of  Missionaries  in  Oregon?  which  has  already  been 

1  See  Lovejoy's  letter  to  Gray  of  Nov.  6,  1869.     Gray's  Oregon,  324-327. 

2  The  River  of  the  West,  Hartford,  1869,  pp.  308  and  312.     Gray's  articles  in 
the  Astoria  Marine  Gazette  were  the  source  from  which  she  drew  the  account. 
The  Overland,  Aug.  1869,  pp.  154-55.     Mrs.  Victor  accepted  the  incident  of  the 
Walla  Walla  dinner  in  the  Overland  article,  but  expressed  some  doubt  as  to 
whether  Whitman  exerted  any  real  influence  in  Washington,  or  had  much  to  do 
with  starting  the  emigration  of  1843.     Five  years  later  in  the  Overland,  1874, 
she  still  accepted  the  legend  in  part,  pp.  45,  122,  and  126.     When  by  subsequent 
investigation  she  found  that  the  story  was  fictitious,  and  said  so,  she  was  de 
nounced  as  the  enemy  of  missions. 

3  New  York,  1869,  see  p.  200.    The  statement  was  derived  from  Doctor  Atkin 
son's  speech  before  the  American  Board. 

4  Gray's  Oregon,  pp.  288-291,  315-317,  322-327,  and  361. 

5  Executive  Doc.  37,  Senate,  41st  Cong.,  Third  Session.     The  true  character 
of  Spalding's  compilation  was  set  forth  in  a  review  in  The  Catholic  World  for 
Feb.    1872,  665-682.    This  is  the  only  critical  examination  of  this  document 
which  I  have  seen.     Internal  evidence  indicates  that  it  was  written  by  one  of  the 
Catholic  priests  familiar  with  the  events  of  the  massacre,  and  I  am  inclined  to 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS    WHITMAN  35 

described,  appeared  and  seemed  to  supply  a  varied  mass  of 
first-hand  confirmatory  evidence.  Critical  study  of  it,  how 
ever,  soon  reveals  that  nearly  every  statement  in  it  bearing 
on  Whitman's  journey  originated  with  Spalding  himself. 
The  peculiar  style,  the  recurrence  of  identical  phrases  and 
of  the  same  historical  errors,  and  other  internal  evidence 
make  it  clear  that  this  document  has  no  value  as  testimony 
beyond  that  of  Spalding's  own  word. 

A  decade  now  passes  without  any  noteworthy  addition  to 
the  literature  of  the  Whitman  legend,1  but  its  next  appear 
ance  gave  it  a  decided  lift  in  the  world,  for  it  was  deemed 
worthy  of  mention,  although  with  some  critical  reservation 
by  an  eminent  historian.  Von  Hoist,  in  his  chapter  on  the 
Oregon  Question,  wrote  of  Webster:  "and  it  is  said  that 
he  was  actually  ready  to  give  up  Oregon,  if  England  would, 
in  consideration  therefor,  show  an  inclination  to  make  con 
cessions  in  the  settling  of  the  boundary  of  Maine,  and  the 
question  of  the  cod-fisheries ;  but  that  Whitman,  the  mission 
ary,  succeeded  in  preventing  Tyler's  concurrence  in  this  plan 
by  promising  to  lead  a  caravan  overland  to  Oregon.  How 
much  truth  there  is  in  this  story  can  probably  never  be 
authentically  determined."  2 

think  that  Vicar  General  Brouillet  was  the  author.  The  present  editor  of  The 
Catholic  World  was  unable  to  give  any  information  on  the  subject. 

More  than  half  of  J.  G.  Craighead's  The  Story  of  Marcus  Whitman  (Phila 
delphia,  1895),  t.  e.  86-182,  is  devoted  to  a  defence  of  Spalding's  document  and  a 
criticism  of  this  article  in  The  Catholic  World.  Doctor  Craighead's  defence  of 
Spalding  is  futile.  It  rests  on  the  assumption  that  Spalding  was  a  trustworthy 
witness,  which,  as  I  shall  show,  was  far  from  the  case. 

1  Doctor  Atkinson  gave  the  story  prominence  in  his  Centennial  address,  The 
American  Colonist,  before  the  Pioneer  Historical   Society  at  Astoria,  Feb.  22, 
1876.     See  his  Biography,  260-272.     It  was  in  preparation  for  this  that  he  wrote 
to  A.  L.  Lovejoy  for  an  account  of  his  recollections  of  Whitman's  journey. 
Lovejoy's  reply  is  printed  on  pp.  272-275  and  in  Nixon's  How  Marcus  Whitman 
Saved  Oregon,  305-312.     J.  Quinn  Thornton,  in  his  History  of  the  Provisional  Gov 
ernment  of  Oregon,  accepts  the  legend  of  Whitman's  having  effected  a  change  in 
the  Oregon  policy  by  his  journey  to  Washington.     Constitution,  etc.,  of  the  Oregon 
Pioneer  Assoc.,  Salem,  Or.   1875,  68.    Thornton  was  a  pioneer  of  1846,  and  a 
friend  of  the  Whitmans. 

2  Von  Hoist,   Constitutional  History  of  the   U.  S.,  Chicago,  1881,111,  51-52. 
Von  Hoist  cites  as  his  source  Gray's  Oregon,  290.    He  accepted  the  assertion  of 


36  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

The  next  three  or  four  years  were  critical  in  the  history 
of  the  legend  of  Marcus  Whitman.  In  the  Northwest  Mrs. 
(Frances  Fuller  Victor  l  and  the  Hon.  Elwood  Evans,2  who  had 
earlier  given  currency  to  the  story,  had  now  become  convinced 
that  it  was  a  fabrication  and  attacked  it  with  great  vigor.  It 
is  to  be  hoped  that  the  history  of  this  controversy  may  some 
day  be  published,  for  the  picture  of  the  grapple  of  criticism 
with  a  legend  in  its  earlier  growth,  and  of  the  survival  if 
not  victory  of  the  fiction  in  spite  of  crushing  attack  in  an 
age  which  flatters  itself  on  its  intelligence,  would  be  full  of 
sobering  instruction  for  the  historical  student. 

Whitman's  leadership  of  the  Emigration  of  1843,  and  apparently  the  fable  about 
Sir  George  Simpson's  political  intrigues. 

1  Mrs.  Victor  became  an  assistant  to  H.  H.  Bancroft  about  the  year  1878. 
Bancroft's  Literary  Industries,  N.  Y.  ed.,  293.     She  is  the  author  of  the  volumes 
on   Oregon,  Washington,  Idaho,  Montana,  Colorado,  Wyoming,  and  Nevada, 
in   his   series.     Soon   after  the  publication   of  her  River  of  the    West  (1870), 
Mrs.  Victor  discovered  that  she  had  been  led  into  error  in  following  Gray's 
articles  in  the  Astoria  Marine  Gazette  in  regard  to  the  American  Board  Mission 
history  and  particularly  in  regard  to  Whitman's  acts  and  motives.     For  a  long 
time  she  supposed  that  his  misstatements  were  merely  errors.     Her  first  sus 
picions  that  the  Whitman  story  had  been  manufactured  arose  from  her  discovery 
that  the  Spalding-Gray  narrative  was  being  used  in  a  petition  to  Congress  by 
Spalding  and  Eells  in  pushing  the  claim  of  the  American  Board  for  the  stations 
at  Waiilatpu  and  Lapwai.     "  This  document  Mr.  Spalding  refused  to  let  me  see, 
although  he  had  it  in  his  hands  at  the  time  I  asked  for  it  without  a  doubt  that 
he  would  allow  me  to  see  it.     This  incident  occurred  soon  after  the  publication  of 
the  History  and  of  The  River  of  the  West,  and  before  I  had  offered  any  public 
criticism  of  Gray's  statements."     Letter  from  Mrs.  Victor,  May  18,  1901.     This 
"  petition  "  was  probably  Exec.  Doc.  37,  or  that  part  of  it  which  begins  on  p.  41  of 
the  document.     An  extract  is  printed  below  on  p.  101.     Mrs.  Victor  apparently 
did  not  know  of  Spalding's  articles  in  The  Pacific,  which  antedated   Gray's 
nearly  a  year.     I  understand  from  what  Mrs.  Victor  writes  that  she  convinced 
Mr.  Evans  in  regard  to  the  Whitman  matter. 

2  Elwood  Evans  went  out  to  Puget   Sound  from  Philadelphia  in  1851,  as 
Deputy  Collector  of  Customs.     Returning  home  in  1852  he  again  went  to  the 
Northwest  as  private  secretary  to  Governor  Stevens,  1853.    From  this  time  he 
was  a  careful  observer  of  events  and  student  of  the  history  of  the  Northwest. 
He  wrote  a  history  of  Oregon,  the  MS.  of  which,  with  a  mass  of  other  material, 
he  put  at  Bancroft's  disposal,  who  awards  him  high  praise  as  lawyer,  scholar,  and 
writer.     Literary   Industries,    292,    350-51.     Bancroft's   History   of   Washington, 
etc.,  54.     He  was  the  author  of  the  general  historical  chapters  in  the  History  of 
the  Pacific  Northwest,  Oregon,  and   Washington,  Portland,  Oregon,  1889.     The 
true  account  of  Whitman's  journey,  and  a  brief  refutation  of  the  fictitious 
account,  will  be  found  in  this  work,  I,  197-8. 


THE  LEGEND  OF  MARCUS    WHITMAN  37 

The  strongest  champion  of  the  story  at  this  crisis  was  the 
Rev.  Myron  Eells,  a  son  of  Gushing  Eells.  In  1882  he 
published  his  History  of  Indian  Missions  on  the  Pacific  Coast.1 
In  the  first  part  of  this  work  he  tells  the  true  history  of 
Whitman's  journey  as  derived  from  the  contemporary  evi 
dence  in  the  Missionary  Herald 2  and  in  the  second  part  the 
fictitious  account  as  derived  from  Spalding,  Gray,  Geiger,  and 
Gushing  Eells.3  To  the  untrained  reader  the  second  narra 
tive  would  seem  equally  as  well  authenticated  as  the  first. 

Mr.  Eells'  next  contribution  was  a  pamphlet  entitled 
Marcus  Whitman,  M.  D.  Proofs  of  his  work  in  saving  Oregon  to 
the  United  States,  and  in  promoting  the  Immigration  of  18^3.^ 
In  this  is  reproduced  all  the  first-hand  testimony  that  the 
most  strenuous  exertions  had  been  able  to  gather  at  that 
stage  of  the  controversy.  All  that  is  presented  in  addition  to 
the  assertions  of  Spalding  and  Gray  and  the  earlier  statement 
of  Gushing  Eells  is  made  up  of  the  recollections  in  1883  of 
William  Geiger,  Gushing  Eells,  Mrs.  E.  Walker,  Perrin  B. 
Whitman,  Alanson  Hinman,  and  S.  J.  Parker,  M.  D.,  of 
conversations  with  Whitman  forty  years  earlier.  There  is 
no  dated  evidence  that  any  one  of  these  men  revealed  the 
tenor  of  these  conversations  before  the  publication  by  Spald 
ing  and  Gray  in  1865-66  of  their  recollections  of  substan 
tially  identical  conversations.  The  testimony  of  these  men 
will  be  examined  in  connection  with  that  of  Spalding  and 
Gray.  Nowhere  in  Mr.  Eells'  pamphlet  is  the  contemporary 
first-hand  testimony,  printed  in  the  Missionary  Herald  in 
1843,  reproduced. 

The  critical  examination  of  the  case  by  Elwood  Evans  and 
Mrs.  Victor,  if  one  may  judge  from  the  citations  of  their  news 
paper  letters  by  their  opponents,  was  searching  and  ought 
to  have  convinced  unbiassed  minds.  Their  conclusions  are 

1  Philadelphia,  1882. 

2  See  pp.  43-46. 

8  See  pp.  167-181.   Dr.  Atkinson's  Introduction  emphasizes  Whitman's  agency 
in  defeating  "  Sir  George  Simpson's  attempt  at  Washington  to  buy  Oregon  for 
Newfoundland  and  the  cod  fisheries,"  4. 
.  *  Portland,  Or.,  1883,  Geo.  H.  Hines.      ff 


38  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

stated  by  Mr.  Eells  in  his  pamphlet  and  in  two  articles  by 
Rev.  Dr.  Thomas  Laurie  in  the  Missionary  Herald.1  These 
articles  make  a  show  of  candor  by  pointing  out  the  errors  of 
detail  in  the  statements  of  Spalding  and  Gray,  but  there  is  no 
real  criticism  of  the  evidence,  and  Dr.  Laurie's  fundamental 
disingenuousness  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  although  he  was 
in  a  way  the  official  historian2  of  the  Board  he  did  not  even 
intimate  that  their  records  and  letter  books  of  1842-43 
contained  any  evidence  to  settle  the  controversy,  nor  did  he 
choose  to  bring  again  to  light  the  printed  testimony  of  the 
Missionary  Herald.  Not  only  that,  but  he  replies  to  Mrs. 
Victor  and  Mr.  Evans  by  quoting  statements  of  Gushing 
Eells  that  the  contemporary  records  show  to  be  errors. 
Again,  when  Mr.  Evans  asserted  that  Whitman  would  not 
have  gone  east  in  1842-43  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  order  to 
discontinue  the  mission  stations  at  Lapwai  and  Waiilatpu,  Dr. 
Laurie  replies  :  "  The  writer  will  not  say  how  it  was,  but  let 
Dr.  Whitman  speak  for  himself,"  and  then  quotes  a  letter  of 
Whitman's  four  years  later.3  Why  Dr.  Laurie  refrained 
from  saying  "  how  it  was "  will  appear  later. 

The  position  of  Elwood  Evans  as  summarized  by  Dr. 
Laurie  was :  (1)  "  Dr.  Whitman's  journey  in  1842-43  had  no 
political  intent  or  significance  whatever.  (2)  No  desire  or 
wish  to  defeat  British  claim  to  the  territory  or  any  part  of  it 
had  any  influence  in  actuating  such  a  journey.  (3)  His 
exclusive  purpose  was  to  have  the  Board  rescind  its  order  to 
abandon  Lapwai  and  Waiilatpu."  4 

1  "  Dr.  Whitman's  Services  iu  Oregon,"  Missionary  Herald,  Feb.  and  Sept., 
1885,  pp.  55-63,  346-354.     The  arguments  of  Mr.  Evans  and  of  Mrs.  Victor  will 
be  found  in  the  Portland  Oregonian  of  December  26,  1884,  and  February  8  and 
15,  1885. 

2  He  published  in  1885,  The  Ely  Volume  ;  or  the  contribution  of  our  Foreign  Mis 
sions  to  Science  and  Human   Weil-Being,  Boston,  1885.     On  pp.  76-82  is  an  ac 
count  of  Whitman's  achievements,  based  on  Dr.  Atkinson's  article  in  the  Mission 
ary  Herald  of  March,  1 869. 

8  Missionary  Herald,  1885,  350.     On  this  letter  see  infra,  p.  97. 

4  The  Missionary  Herald,  1885,  353,  from  The  Oregonian  of  Dec.  26,  1884. 
As  these  conclusions  are  identical  with  those  set  forth  in  the  second  part  of  this 
paper,  I  may  say  that  when  I  wrote  the  article  on  The  Leg  end  of  Marcus  Whitman, 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS    WHITMAN  39 

This  controversy  engendered  much  bitterness  of  feeling 
and  recrimination.  Mr.  Evans  and  Mrs.  Victor  and  the 
other  critics  were  denounced  as  the  enemies  of  missions  and 
as  the  champions  of  the  secularists  and  Jesuits  ;  and  Mr. 
Evans  asserted  in  turn  his  belief  the  legend  did  not  originate 
with.  Spalding  and  Gray,  but  that  they  were  put  up  to  it  by 
Secretary  Treat  of  the  American  Board  in  order  that  the 
Board  might  secure  grants  of  land  from  the  Government  in 
recognition  of  the  services  of  the  missions.1 

The  publication  of  new  evidence  has  shown  that  Mrs. 
Victor  and  Mr.  Evans  were  over  confident  in  their  refusal  to 
believe  that  Whitman  went  to  Washington,  but  their  main 
position,  as  summarized  above,  was  solidly  established.  In 
view  of  this,  the  comments  on  the  controversy  of  Myron  Eells 
are  of  interest:  "The  discussion  which  followed  (the  denial 
of  the  truth  of  the  Whitman  stor}^),  often  called  the  Whitman 
controversy,  was  long  and  voluminous,  especially  in  1884— 
85.  Dr.  Eells  followed  it  with  the  greatest  interest,  though 
he  let  others  do  the  most  of  the  writing.  At  times  he  almost 
feared  that  from  Dr.  Whitman,  from  the  cause  of  missions, 
from  the  cause  of  Christ  would  be  snatched  the  honors  which 
he  believed  belonged  to  them." 2  Again :  "  In  1885  the 
Whitman  controversy  was  the  fiercest,  especially  in  the 
Portland  Oregonian,  where  I  published  three  long  articles. 
I  also  published  a  pamphlet  in  his  defence.3  At  times  I 
almost  felt  that  the  public  would  believe  I  was  defeated. 
But  the  controversy  was  fought  through ;  we  had  the  last 

which  was  published  in  the  American  Historical  Review,  Jan.  1901, 1  had  not  seen 
Mr.  Eells'  pamphlet  or  Dr.  Laurie's  articles,  and  did  not  know  the  details  of  the 
controversy  in  Oregon  and  Washington.  Mr.  Evans's  own  statements  of  his  posi 
tion  may  be  found  in  Note  C,  at  the  end  of  this  essay. 

1  The  Weekly  Ledger,  Tacoma,  Jan.  16,  1885,  cited  by  Dr.  Laurie,  Mission 
ary  Herald,  1885,  351. 

2  Father  Eells.  —  A  Biography  of  Cushing  Eells,  D.  D.,  By  Myron  Eells. 
Boston  and  Chicago,  1884, 113. 

3  This  pamphlet  included  Mr.  Eells'  three  articles,  and  papers  by  E.  C.  Ross 
and  W.  H.  Gray  in  reply  to  Mr.  Evans  and  Mrs.  Victor.     It  was  published  by 
G.  H.  Hines,  Portland,  1885. 


40  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

words,  which  were  not  answered,  and  we  felt  that  we  had 
gained  the  victory."  x 

The  feeling  was  justified  by  the  event.  The  real  spread  of 
the  Legend  and  its  acceptance  by  scholars  of  reputation  dates 
from  the  period  of  this  controversy.  That  this  should  be  the 
case  is  surprising  and  at  first  sight  perplexing.  The  explana 
tion,  however,  is  very  simple  and  not  at  all  creditable  to 
American  historical  scholarship  or  critical  discernment. 

During  the  progress  of  this  controversy  the  Rev.  William 
Barrows,  a  Congregational  clergyman,  who  forty  years  earlier 
was  living  in  St.  Louis  and  had  seen  Whitman  at  the  time 
of  his  arrival  there  in  February  1843,  published  a  series  of 
articles  on  the  history  of  Oregon  in  the  New  York  Observer? 
which  later,  in  a  revised  form,  constituted  a  considerable  part 
of  the  text  of  his  Oregon  :  The  Struggle  for  Possession,  which 
was  published  in  December,  1883,  by  Houghton,  Mifflin,  and 
Co.,  in  the  American  Commonwealth  Series,  edited  by  Horace 
E.  Scudder. 

Although  Dr.  Barrows  lived  near  Boston  he  seems  to  have 
successfully  withstood  the  temptation,  which  would  perhaps 
have  proved  irresistible  to  the  ordinary  historian,  to  consult 
the  records  of  the  American  Board  or  even  their  printed 
Reports  and  the  files  of  the  Missionary  Herald.  He  chose 
rather  to  draw  from  such  turbid  sources  as  Spalding's  Execu 
tive  Document  37  and  Gray's  History.  One  of  their  fables, 
e.  g.,  the  presence  of  Sir  George  Simpson  in  Washington,  he 
rejects  with  engaging  candor,  only  to  insert  it  five  times 
within  fifty  pages.3  Barrows'  book  is  constructed  without 
method,  is  bewildering  and  repetitious  to  the  last  degree, 
intermingling  inextricably  perversions  of  fact  with  pure 
fictions,  and  enormously  distorting  the  history  of  the  Oregon 
question  by  making  it  turn  mainly  on  the  activities  of  the 
small  group  of  missionaries  of  the  American  Board  and  of 
Whitman  in  particular.  It  was  a  favorite  theme  with  Mr. 

1  Art.  on  Marcus  Whitman  in  The  Advance,  July  4,  1895. 

2  The  Observer  for  Dec.  7,  21,  1882  ;  Jan.  4,  11,  18,  25,  and  Feb.  1, 1883. 
8  Cf.  pp.  233,  with  pp.  153,  158,  202,  203,  204. 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS    WHITMAN  41 

Barrows  to  expatiate  on  the  ignorance  of  the  west  and  of 
western  history  prevalent  in  the  east,1  and  it  was  to  be  his 
singular  fortune  to  write  a  book  on  the  west  the  acceptance 
of  which  as  history  by  eastern  scholars  was  to  be  a  far  more 
convincing  demonstration  of  his  thesis  than  anything  he  ever 
said  in  its  support.2 

This  rehash  of  Spalding  and  Gray,  overladen  with  much 
irrelevant  disquisition,  became  the  accepted  source  of  Oregon 
history  for  writers  of  text-books  and  popular  articles,  although 
H.  H.  Bancroft's  Oregon,  which  was  published  a  .year  later, 
offered  a  painstaking  and  comprehensive  narrative  based  on 
contemporary  sources  and  scrupulously  authenticated  by  foot 
notes.3  But  Bancroft's  Oregon,  since  it  formed  part  of  a  series 
which  was  too  vast  for  one  man  to  write  and  which  therefore 
must  be  the  work  of  various  anonymous  subordinates,  was 
ignored  as  "  machine  made  "  history,  and  therefore  unworthy 
of  consideration,  and  confidence  was  reposed  in  the  handi 
work  of  Mr.  Barrows.  Never  were  confiding  scholars  and  a 

1  Cf.  his  United  States  of  Yesterday  and  To-morrow,  Boston,  1888,  passim. 

2  The  book  was  warmly  praised  by  the  Magazine  of  American  History,  Dec. 
1883.     The  editor,  Mrs.  Lamb,  contributed  a  leading  article  to  the  September 
number,  1884,  entitled  A   Glimpse  of  the  Valley  of  many  Waters,  which  was  a  de 
scription  of  the  Walla- Walla  country.    The  legend  of  Whitman  is  narrated  after 
Gray  and  Barrows. 

3  It  is  perhaps  not  superfluous  to  remark  that  the  task  before  Mr.  Bancroft 
and  his  "  assistants  "  was  essentially  different  from  that  before  Mr.  Winsor  and 
his  collaborators.     In  the  one  case  the  results  of  generations  of  historical  investi 
gation  were  to  be  sifted  and  summarized  :  in  the  other  the  critical  and  construc 
tive  work   had  to  be  done  from  the  very  beginnings.     Whatever  may  be  the 
defects  of  detail,  the  Bancroft  History  of  the  Pacific  States  is  a  great  achieve 
ment.     It  cannot  be  used  uncritically,  nor  can  many  histories  be  safely  used  that 
way,  but,  after  such  a  critical  examination  of  the  sources  as  I  have  made  in  this 
study  of  The  Legend  of  Marcus  Whitman,  it  is  not  a  common  experience  to  find  in 
any  general  history,  constructed  directly  from  the  raw  material,  so  faithful  and 
trustworthy  a  presentation  of  the  contents  of  those  sources  as  in  the  parts  of 
the  first  volume  of  Bancroft's  Oregon  that  I  have  subjected  to  this  test.     The  gulf 
between  it  and  Barrows  is  immeasurable.     To  Mrs.  Frances  Fuller  Victor  as  the 
avowed  author  of  Bancroft's  Oregon,   working  under   his  editorial  supervision, 
every  student  of  Oregon  history  is  under  great  obligations  for  her  scholarly  and 
honest    presentation  of  the  facts  derived  from  the   unparalleled  collection  of 
materials  gathered  by  Mr.  Bancroft. 


42  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

more  confiding  public  so  taken  in.  The  result  has  been  that 
more  people  in  this  country  know  the  fictitious  history  of  the 
Oregon  question  invented  by  the  Rev.  H.  H.  Spalding  than 
know  the  real  facts,  and  that  for  many  others  who  have  not 
accepted  the  whole  of  the  Whitman  legend  the  real  history  of 
Oregon  has  been  distorted  out  of  all  proportion.  These  are 
strong  words,  but  the  propagation  of  the  legend  of  Marcus 
Whitman  after  the  publication  of  Barrows'  Oregon  is  simply 
amazing,  in  view  of  the  almost  concurrent  publication  of 
Bancroft's  Oregon,  in  which  the  true  history  of  Marcus  Whit 
man  is  told  and  the  legend  dismissed  with  a  contemptuous 
footnote. l 

The  first  indication  of  the  new  life  breathed  into  the  legend 
by  Barrows'  Oregon  was  its  insertion  in  a  school  history  by 
Mr.  H.  E.  Scudder.2  The  significance  of  this  was  keenly 
appreciated  by  Gushing  Eells:  "When  Dr.  Eells  was  pre 
sented  with  a  copy  of  the  latter  work  (Scudder's  History  of 
the  United  States,  for  Schools  and  Academies)  which  con 
tains  also  [i.  e.,  beside  the  narrative]  a  picture  of  Dr.  Whit 
man  leaving  his  station  for  Washington,  it  was  most  plain 
that  the  truth  learned  by  the  school  children  had  been 
fostered  by  God  and  would  be  scattered  so  far  and  wide  and 
deep  that  no  combination  of  learned  men  or  human  reasoning 
could  successfully  oppose  it."  3 

About  the  same  time  Charles  Carleton  Coffin,  a  most  suc 
cessful  historical  story  teller  for  boys  and  girls,  prepared  from 
iSpalding  and  Gray  a  vivid  narrative  of  the  incident  for  his 
Utuilding  the  Nation,  in  which  will  be  found  all  the  legendary 
details  of  the  original  fiction.4  The  influence  of  Barrows  was 

1  "  This  is  the  statement  made  of  Whitman's  object  and  arguments  by  the 
prudential  committee  to  whom  they  were  addressed  :  but  Gray  wickedly  asserts 
that   Whitman  went  to  Washington  with  a  political  purpose,  instead  of  going  on 
the  business  of  the  mission."     I,  343.     Bancroft's  Oregon  was  written  before  the 
Whitman  controversy  of  1882-84  but  was  not  published   until  after  it.     This 
accounts  for  the  slight  attention  paid  to  the  Spalding-Gray  story. 

2  History  of  the  United  States,  for  Schools  and  Academies,  Philadelphia,  1884, 
348-49  ;  cf.  also,  Scudder's  New  History  of  the  United  States,  1897,  310-11. 

8  Biography  of  Cushing  Eells,  116. 
*  N.Y.,  1883,  pp.  371-86. 


THE  LEGEND  OF  MARCUS    WHITMAN  43 

now  reinforced  by  the  independent  appearance  of  the  story  in 
several  works  of  authority.  The  engagement  of  Dr.  Atkinson 
to  write  the  historical  part  of  the  article  on  Oregon  in  the 
Encyclopaedia  Britannica  secured  its  insertion  there,1  and, 
relying  partly  on  Von  Hoist  and  Barrows,  Lyon  G,  Tyler 
gave  it  recognition  with  some  criticism  and  correction  in  his 
Letters  and  Times  of  the  Tylers?  Likewise  following  Bar 
rows  and  Gray,  J.  P.  Dunn,  Jr.,  the  author  of  the  volume  on 
Indiana  in  the  Commonwealth  Series,  incorporated  the  story  in 
his  Massacres  of  the  Mountains.3  The  year  following  (188T) 
Samuel  Adams  Drake  adopted  in  his  Making  of  the  Great 
West  the  legendary  account  of  the  cause  of  Whitman's 
journey,  but  passed  by  in  discreet  silence  his  political 
influence.  He  attributed  to  him  the  organization  of  the 
emigration  of  1843.4 

In  1889  the  influence  of  Barrows  is  manifest  in  securing 
Whitman  nearly  a  column  in  the  Dictionary  of  American 
Biography?  The  mention  in  the  articles  on  Oregon  in  the 
American  supplement  to  the  Britannica,  and  in  the  Inter 
national  Cyclopaedia,  and  the  sketch  in  Bliss*  Encyclopaedia 
of  Missions, Q  may  also  be  attributed  to  the  same  source.  In 
this  same  period  the  legend  appears  in  two  church  histories 
of  accepted  authority.7 

1  Vol.  XVII  (1884),  825. 

2  Letters  and  Times  of  the  Tylers,  II,  438-39,  Richmond,  1885,  and  III,  Williams- 
burg,   1896,   47.     Mr.  Tyler  published   a  letter   in  the    Magazine    of  American 
History,  Feb.  1884,  168-170,  in  which  he  explained  his  father's  Oregon  policy. 
Aside  from  this,  he  apparently  accepts  the  Whitman  story,  and  places  confidence 
in  Gray. 

8  New  York,  1886,  38-42.  Executive  Doc.  37  is,  through  Gray,  Dunn's  source 
for  the  account  of  The  Whitman  Massacre,  83-100. 

4  Pp.  233,  239-40.    Carl  Schurz,  in  his  Henry  Clay,  II,  278,  credited  Whitman 
with  giving  the  government  valuable  information  and  with  leading  the  emigra 
tion  of  1843. 

5  Edited  by  James  Grant  Wilson  and  John  Fiske,  N.  Y.,  1889.     For  Mr. 
Charles  H.  Farnam's  elaborate  History  of  the  Descendants  of  John  Whitman  of 
Weymouth,  Mass.,  New  Haven,  1889,  237-39,  the  nephew  of  Doctor  Whitman, 
Perrin  B.  Whitman  supplied  his  version  of  the  legend.     See  infra,  pp.  65-66. 

6  N.  Y.,  1891,  art.  Whitman. 

7  The  History  of  Congregational  Churches  in  the  United  States,  by  Williston 


44  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

Following  Mr.  Charles  Carleton  Coffin,  another  successful 
writer  of  boys'  books,  Hezekiah  Butterworth,  gave  the  legend 
prominence  in  his  tale,  The  Log  School-House  by  the  Colum 
bia,1  and  made  it  the  subject  of  a  poem  from  which  a  selec 
tion  may  be  quoted  as  a  curiosity : 

"  That  Spring,  a  man  with  frozen  feet 
Came  to  the  marble  halls  of  state, 
And  told  his  mission  but  to  meet 
The  chill  of  scorn,  the  scoff  of  hate. 
*  Is  Oregon  worth  saving  ? '  asked 
The  treaty-makers  from  the  coast ; 
And  him  the  Church  with  questions  asked, 
And  said,  *  Why  did  you  leave  your  post?  ' 

"Was  it  for  this  that  he  had  braved 
The  warring  storms  of  mount  and  sky  ? 

t  Yes  1  —  yet  that  Empire  he  had  saved, 
And  to  his  post  went  back  to  die  — 
Went  back  to  die  from  Washington,  — 
Went  back  to  die  for  Walla  Walla 
For  Idaho  and  Oregon.'* 

In  this  review  of  the  literature  of  the  Legend  of  Marcus 
Whitman  we  now  pass  to  the  year  1895,  the  date  of  the  pub 
lication  of  the  first  professed  biographies.  In  that  year  the 
Rev.  J.  G.  Craighead,  for  many  years  one  of  the  editors  of 
the  New  York  Evangelist,  who  had  been  familiar  with  the 
story  since  1870  and  had  in  vain  devoted  weeks  to  the  effort 
to  authenticate  the  part  of  it  describing  Whitman's  work  in 
Washington,2  published  his  Story  of  Marcus  Whitman  :  Early 

Walker,  D.  D.,  377-78,  N.  Y.,  1894,  and  Congregationalism  in  America,  by  A.  E. 
Dunning,  D.D.,  N.  Y.,  1894,  in  Ch.  XXI,  contributed  by  Dr.  Joseph  E.  Roy, 
442. 

1  N.  Y.,  1893.    The  hero  is  aroused  by  Whitman's  appearance  in  tbe  east,  p.  28. 
The  legend  is  given  in  brief,  pp.  235-38  ;  the  poem,  pp.  244  ff.     On  p.  103  the 
author  remarks :   "  Exact  history  has  robbed  this  story  of  some  of  its  romance, 
but  it  is  still  one  of  the  noblest  wonder-tales  of  our  own  or  any  nation."    In  1890 
the  story  finds  a  place  in  another  widely  used  text- book,  Montgomery's  Leading 
Facts  of  American  History,  725-58;  ed.  of  1900,  263-64. 

2  See  infra,  p.  81,  n.  1. 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  45 

Protestant  Missions  in  the  Northwest.1  As  has  already  been 
said,  the  larger  part  of  this  volume  is  devoted  to  a  defence 
of  Spalding's  Executive  Document  37  from  the  attack  of  the 
Catholic  World?  It  was  to  be  expected,  then,  that  Doctor 
Craighead  would  accept  Spalding  and  his  fellow  witnesses 
wherever  their  assertions  were  not  in  palpable  contradiction 
to  such  other  evidence  as  he  was  familiar  with  or  chose  to 
take  into  consideration.  His  book,  consequently,  is  a  typical 
specimen  of  specious  apologetics.  The  apparently  candid 
sifting  and  rejection  of  the  obviously  legendary  narratives  of 
Whitman's  interviews  with  Tyler  and  Webster  inspires  the 
reader  with  confidence,  and  he  is  given  no  reason  to  suspect 
that  other  essential  features  of  the  story  which  Doctor  Craig- 
head  saves  are  just  as  destitute  of  contemporary  evidence,  or 
just  as  contradictory  to  known  facts. 

For  example,  he  repeats  the  incidents  of  the  Walla- Walla 
dinner,  without  even  hinting  that  they  had  been  completely 
disproved.3  Again,  although  he  devotes  one  hundred  pages 
to  defending  Spalding's  Document  against  the  Catholic  World, 
he  glides  over  the  crushing  attack  of  Mrs.  Victor  and  Mr. 
Evans  by  giving  a  brief  summary  and  then  evading  the  point 
at  issue.  "  Some  writers,"  he  remarks,  "  have  endeavored  to 
convince  the  public  that  the  chief  object  of  Doctor  Whitman's 
winter  journey  to  the  east  was  not  to  induce  immigration  to 
Oregon  nor  to  convey  such  information  to  our  government  as 
was  needed  in  order  to  settle  aright  the  question  of  boun 
daries  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States.  They 
claim  that  his  main  purpose  was  to  visit  Boston,  in  order  to 
induce  the  American  Board  to  countermand  an  order  sent  out 
that  year,  on  account  of  the  hostile  disposition  shown  by  a 
few  Indians,  discontinuing  two  of  the  stations ;  and  thus  con 
centrating  the  missionaries  for  greater  safety  ;  and  in  confir 
mation  they  adduce  the  fact  that  his  missionary  associates 

1  Philadelphia,  1895.    Presbyterian  Board  of  Publication  and  Sabbath  School 
Work. 

2  See  supra,  p.  34,  n.  5. 

8  Story  of  Marcus  Whitman,  60-61. 


46  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

met  together  in  order  to  discuss  this  very  question  the 
month  previous  to  his  leaving  for  the  east."  No  intimation  is 
given  of  the  evidence  in  the  files  of  the  Missionary  Herald  ad 
vanced  by  Mrs.  Victor  and  Mr.  Evans,  and  no  effort  is  made  to 
reply  to  their  attack  on  Spalding's  evidence  except  to  quote 
Gushing  Bells'  letter  to  Secretary  Treat  of  May  28,  1866, 
and  the  confirmatory  testimony  of  Spalding  and  Gray,  and 
then  to  draw  the  comforting  conclusion :  "  This  evidence  .  .  . 
must  prove  conclusive  to  every  candid  mind,  and  settle  this 
question,  which  indeed  has  only  been  raised  within  a  few 
years."  1  Other  examples  of  the  superficial  and  disingenuous 
method  of  this  writer  might  be  given,  but  it  is  unnecessary. 
In  the  final  chapter,  "  Oregon  Saved  to  the  United  States," 
some  of  the  most  extravagant  statements  ever  made  about 
Whitman  are  quoted  with  approval.2 

The  other  biography  of  this  year  is  much  better  known.  Its 
title  is  :  How  Marcus  Whitman  Saved  Oregon  ;  a  True  Romance 
of  Patriotic  Heroism,  Christian  Devotion,  and  Final  Martyr 
dom.— ¥>y  Oliver  W.  Nixon,  M.  D.,  LL.  D.3 


1  Pages  66-68. 

2  For  example,  this  from  The  Advance  of  March  14,  1895  :  "Is  there  in  history 
the  record  of  a  man  who  by  himself  saved  for  his  country  so  vast  and  so  valu 
able  a  territory  as  did  Whitman  by  his  prophetic  heroism  of  1842-3  ?     His  ride 
across  the  continent  in  the  winter  of  1842,  a  winter  memorable  for  its  severity,  is 
without  a  parallel  in  history.     It  stands  as  the  sublime  achievement  of  a  prophet 
and  a  hero,  who  saw  and  suffered  that  his  country  might  gain.    The  United 
States  paid  $10,000,000  for  Alaska.     It  bought  Louisiana  for  millions  more.     It 
paid  a  Mexican  War,  blood,  and  money,  for  the  acquisition  of  Texas  and  New 
Mexico.     But  what  did  it  pay  for  Washington  and  Oregon  and  Idaho,  a  territory 
into  which  New  England  and  the  middle  States  might  be  put,  with  Maryland, 
Virginia,  West  Virginia  and  three  Connecticuts  ?     It  paid  not  one  cent.     That 
vast  region  cost  the  Nation  nothing.     It  cost  only  the  sufferings  and  perils  of 
Marcus  Whitman,  who  risked  his  life  and  endured  all  hardships  that  the  territory 
of  his  adoption  might  belong  to  the  country  of  his  birth." 

8  Star  Publishing  Co.,  Chicago,  1895.  Dr.  Nixon  has  been  the  literary  editor 
of  The  Chicago  Inter-Ocean  for  twenty  years  or  more,  and  in  the  columns  of  this 
journal  he  has  been  the  standing  champion  of  the  Whitman  story,  rushing  to  its 
defence  against  criticism  with  an  impetuosity  that  has  rendered  him  apparently 
incapable  of  stating  his  opponents'  position  correctly  or  of  verifying  his  own  asser 
tions  in  rebuttal.  Cf.  references,  p.  54,  infra. 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS    WHITMAN  47 

An  ardent  champion  of  the  story,  through  thick  and  thin, 
Dr.  Nixon  accepts  all  its  legendary  elements  such  as  the 
Walla  Walla  dinner,  and  passes  over  in  silence  #11  adverse 
evidence.  By  his  enthusiasm  and  the  deft  interweaving  of 
genuine  materials  from  Mrs.  Whitman's  diary  and  letters, 
and  Dr.  Whitman's  letters  with  the  fictions  of  Spalding  and 
the  other  sponsors  of  the  story  he  has  made  his  book  as  inter 
esting  as  a  narrative  as  it  is  utterly  untrustworthy  as  history. 

Dr.  Nixon's  multiform  and  unflagging  advocacy  of  the 
legend  of  Marcus  Whitman  entitles  him  to  rank  with  Wil 
liam  Barrows  as  a  dominating  influence  in  its  later  diffusion. 
Two  weeks  after  the  publication  of  his  book,  on  July  4th, 
"  forty  of  the  leading  ministers  of  that  city  (Chicago)  and  in 
nearby  towns,  took  for  texts  the  heroic  life  of  Marcus  Whit 
man  for  patriotic  sermons."1  The  acceptance  of  the  legend 
by  some  of  the  school  text-book  writers  now  inspired  its  ad 
vocates  to  solicit  its  insertion  in  as  many  as  possible.  Dr. 
Nixon  may  here  tell  the  story :  — 

"ANOTHER  GRAND  FEATURE 

is,  we  are  reaching  and  have  reached  the  writers  and  pub 
lishers  of  history.  Two  of  the  best  juvenile  histories  of  the 
past  year,  which  will  go  into  the  hands  of  millions  of  chil 
dren,  have  excellent  Whitman  chapters.  I  have  letters  from 
both  authors  and  publishers  who  express  their  delight  in 
writing  them.  I  am  in  receipt  of  letters  from  other  eminent 
historians  who  express  regret  that  the  name  of  Whitman  is 
not  mentioned  in  their  chapters,  and  one  of  them  adds,  4  Rest 
assured,  Doctor,  when  I  issue  a  new  edition  Whitman  shall 
have  a  grand  chapter. '  I  think  we  can  hail  such  victories  as 
being  as  substantial  as  any  achieved  on  any  field  of  battle."2 

It  is  not  necessary  here  to  refer  to  all  the  text-books  which 
have  now  accepted  the  story,  but  a  few  deserve  notice.  An 
illustration  of  Dr.  Nixon's  labors  is  no  doubt  afforded  by  the 

1  From  Dr.  Nixon's  Oration  at  Whitman  College,  Whitman  College  Quarterly, 
III,  No.  4,  1900,  14.     The  book  was  published  June  20,  1895. 

2  Dr.  Nixon's  Oration,  loc.  cit.,  17-18. 


48  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

School  History  of  the  United  States,  by  William  A.  Mowry 
and  Arthur  May  Mowry,1  which  was  published  in  1898.  In 
the  body  of  the  work  all  that  is  said  is  "  Dr.  Marcus  Whit 
man  had  practically  saved  this  country  to  us  by  an  emigration 
brought  over  in  1843,"  but  in  an  appendix,  just  preceding 
the  account  of  the  War  with  Spain,  a  page  is  devoted  to  the 
legend. 

Reliance  upon  Barrows'  Oregon,  on  the  other  hand,  accounts 
for  the  acceptance  of  the  legend  by  such  historians  as  Pro 
fessor  Burgess,  Professor  McMaster,  and  John  W.  Foster. 
Professor  Burgess  asserts  that  President  Tyler  upon  receiving 
the  information  which  Whitman  brought  ceased  to  consider 
giving  up  Northern  Oregon  and  adds :  "  The  Administration 
caused  Dr.  Whitman's  descriptions  of  Oregon  to  be  printed 
and  distributed  throughout  the  United  States  and  also  his 
offer  to  lead  a  colony  to  take  possession  of  the  country."2 
Professor  McMaster  has  popularized  Barrows  in  his  excellent 
school  history,3  and  Ex-Secretary  John  W.  Foster  has  fallen 
into  the  same  trap.4  Probably  the  same  explanation  is  to 

1  Boston,  1898,  254  and  418.      In  the  First  Steps  in  the  History  of  our  Country, 
by  the  same  authors,  Boston,  1899,  the  whole  history  of  the  Oregon  question  cen 
ters  around  Marcus  Whitman,  and  the  chapter  concludes,  p.  234  :  "  Thus  we  see 
how,  through  the  sterling  patriotism,  intrepidity,  and  energy  of  one  man,  it  has 
happened  that  three  states,  Washington,  Oregon,  and  Idaho,  were  added  to  our 
Union,  three  stars  to  our  flag,  and  six  members  to  the  American  Senate." 

2  Burgess,  The  Middle  Period,  N.  Y.,  1897,  315-16.    It  is  needless  to  say  that 
these  statements  are  without  authentic  evidence  and  are  derived  from  Spalding 
through  Barrows. 

8  McMaster,  School  History,  N.  Y.,  1897,  322-324.  Barrows  is  followed  also  in 
presenting  Spal ding's  Protestantized  version  of  the  mission  of  the  Four  Flathead 
Indians  to  St.  Louis  in  1832.  In  McMaster's  With  the  Fathers  (1896),  in  the 
chapter  on  "The  Struggle  for  Territory,"  the  Whitman  legend  is  told  with  vivid 
details,  307-10. 

4  See  A  Century  of  American  Diplomacy,  Boston,  1900,  305.  Another  victim 
of  Barrows  is  Professor  Thomas  of  Haverford.  See  his  History  of  the  United  States, 
Boston,  1893  and  1897,  242-43,  and  also  his  Elementary  History,  Boston,  1900,  290- 
298,  where,  as  in  Howry's  book,  the  story  of  the  Oregon  question  is  the  story  of 
Whitman.  Among  other  text-books  which  have  incorporated  the  story  may  be 
mentioned  Gordy's,  1898  (it  is  entirely  omitted  in  the  edition  of  1899),  and  Charles 
Morris's  two  books.  In  his  History  of  the  United  States,  Philadelphia,  1897,  it 
appears  in  a  footnote,  p.  315,  but  in  his  Primary  History,  1899,  210-15,  the  com- 


THE  LEGEND  OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  49 

be  given  of  the  qualified  acceptance  of  the  story  by  Professor 
Sparks  l  and  the  unquestioning  presentation  of  the  legend  in 
all  its  details  by  Dr.  W.  E.  Griffis.2 

Of  the  latest  writers  to  be  mentioned,  one  boldly  takes  her 
stand  on  the  borderland  between  history  and  fiction.  Eva 
Emery  Dye's  McLoughlin  and  Old  Oregon,  A.  Chronicle,3 
gives  evidence  of  much  conscientious  study.  It  is  a  "  chron 
icle,"  in  the  same  sense  as  Quentin  Durward  or  one  of  Shake 
speare's  "  histories."  Where  documents  exist  they  are  utilized, 
where  they  do  not  exist  invention  takes  their  place.  This 
book  is  a  literary  picture  of  early  Oregon,  of  exceptional 
interest  and,  in  outline  and  coloring,  rich  in  instruction.  In 
regard  to  the  Whitman  story,  it  is  not  more  unhistorical 
than  Nixon's  book,  but  at  the  critical  points  in  the  story 
it  assumes,  for  the  time  being,  the  semblance  of  carefully 
authenticated  history,  when,  in  reality,  it  is  a  skilful  com 
bination  of  the  true  history,  the  Spalding  legend  and  the 
author's  own  invention.  The  other,  Dr.  William  A.  Mo  wry, 
essays  the  impossible  task  of  combining  into  a  consistent  and 
trustworthy  narrative  the  Spalding  legend  and  the  genuine 
materials.  His  Marcus  Whitman  and  The  Early  Days  of  l 
Oregon*  is  perhaps  the  most  plausible  attempt  to  save  the/ 
legend,  stripped  of  its  exaggerations,  that  has  been  made.' 
He  freely  acknowledges  that  Spalding  erred  in  "details," 
and  surrenders  the  most  obviously  fabulous  features  of  the 
story.  His  point  of  view  in  writing  Oregon  history  is  that 
of  the  missionary  group,  and  his  book  will,  no  doubt,  be 
hailed  as  a  successful  defence,  but  his  apparent  success  is 
won  at  a  sacrifice  of  his  standing  as  an  historical  investigator. 

plete  legendary  account  is  to  be  found,  and  Marcus  Whitman  receives  more  space 
than  Webster  and  Clay  combined,  and  only  a  little  less  than  is  accorded  to  the 
whole  Civil  War. 

1  The  Expansion  of  the  American  People,  Chicago,  1900,  306-7. 

2  The  Romance  of  Conquest,  Boston,  1899,  172-173. 

3  Chicago,  1900. 

4  New  York,  1901.     Dr.  Mowry  very  kindly  offered  to  send  me  advance  sheets 
of  his  book  to  enable  me  to  include  it  in  my  review  of  Whitman  literature.    This 
was  a  courtesy  all  the  more  to  be  appreciated  because  he  must  have  realized  that 
I  could  not  approve  of  his  method  of  using  and  of  ignoring  evidence. 

4 


50  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

Two  or  three  examples  may  be  given  of  his  methods.  In 
Chapter  X  he  discusses  the  missionary  situation  in  1842  and 
Whitman's  resolution  to  come  east. 

In  this  critical  juncture,  instead  of  setting  before  the 
reader  all  the  contemporary  uncolored  testimony,  Dr.  Mowry 
begins  with  Gushing  Eells'  letter  of  1866,  written  to  sup 
port  the  Spalding  story.  The  next  citation  is  from  Mr. 
Eells'  affidavit  of  forty  years  after  the  event;  then  comes  an 
extract  from  Elkanah  Walker's  contemporary  letter,  which 
is  attributed  to  Gushing  Eells !  Although  this  error  renders 
more  glaring  the  inconsistency  between  the  contemporary 
testimony  and  Gushing  Eells'  later  statements,  Dr.  Mowry 
says  nothing  of  this  disagreement.  It  is  not  until  Chapter 
XV  is  reached  that  the  record  of  the  mission  meeting 
authorizing  Whitman's  journey  is  printed,  and  then  with 
the  last  eight  words  omitted.1 

In  discussing  Whitman's  relation  to  the  emigration  of 
1843,  Dr.  Mowry  omits  all  reference  to  the  absolutely  con 
vincing  adverse  testimony  printed  by  Myron  Eells,  and 
relies  on  such  flimsy  evidence  as  Spalding's  Zachrey  letter.2 
Again,  comparison  of  his  book  with  the  extracts  quoted  in 
this  essay  from  Mrs.  Whitman's  letters  will  reveal  how 
clearly  Dr.  Mowry  is  the  advocate  and  not  the  historian. 
His  book  will  be  searched  in  vain  for  any  rigorous  methodical 
criticism  of  the  evidence.3  Dr.  Mowry,  however,  in  spite 
of  the  shortcomings  of  his  narrative,  has  laid  students  under 
great  obligation,  by  the  documents  he  has  printed.4 

The  new  and  "  grand  feature  "  of  reaching  the  writers  of 
school  books  which  has  been  described,  was,  however,  early 

1  Page  175.     The  purpose  of  Whitman's  journey  as  stated  in  the  record  was 
"  to  confer  with  the  committee  of  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.  in  regard  to  the  interests  of 
this  mission."     See  p.  56. 

2  Cf.  Myron  Eells'  Marcus  Whitman,  27-29,  with  Howry's  Marcus  Whitman, 
194-196,  and  infra,  pp.  93-95. 

8  Dr.  Mowry's  reliance  on  Spalding  leads  him  to  quote  Dr.  White's  letter  to  the 
Indian  Commissioner  from  Spalding's  garbled  extract  which  reduces  forty  lines 
into  nine.  Mowry,  208.  White's  Ten  Years  in  Oregon,  191. 

*  Especially  the  correspondence  relating  to  the  massacre. 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS    WHITMAN  51 

destined  to  confront  an  equally  persistent  and  indefatigable 
effort  to  put  before  the  authors  of  text-books  the  real  facts 
in  the  case.  "The  Chicago  Mephistopheles  in  this  matter," 
as  Dr.  Nixon  has  feelingly  characterized  him,  is  Mr.  Wil 
liam  I.  Marshall,  of  the  Gladstone  school.  Having  convinced 
himself  after  what  is  probably  the  most  painstaking  exami 
nation  of  the  question  that  has  ever  been  made,  that  the 
Whitman  story  was  a  fabrication,  Mr.  Marshall  prepared  to 
write  a  book  on  the  subject.  Before  it  was  ready  for  publi 
cation,  however,  his  attention  was  arrested  by  the  remarkable 
efflorescence  of  the  legend  in  the  newest  and  most  attractive 
school  text-books.  Realizing  as  a  practical  teacher  the  tre 
mendous  significance  of  this  phase  of  the  development  of  the 
legend,  and  aware  of  the  relative  ineffectiveness  of  public 
controversy  against  such  an  array  of  writers  and  champions 
as  would  now  rush  into  the  fray,  he  began  about  three  years 
ago  a  silent  campaign  by  submitting  portions  of  his  manu 
script  and  transcripts  of  his  material  to  the  authors  of  the 
existing  text-books.  In  this  way  he  convinced  many  that 
they  had  been  taken  in,  and  put  others  on  their  guard  against 
a  like  misfortune.1 

1  Mr.  Marshall  writes  that  he  first  learned  of  the  Whitman  story  through  Dr. 
Mowry  in  1877.  In  1884,  having  become  convinced  that  Whitman  did  not  save 
Oregon,  he  criticised  the  story  in  a  lecture  in  Baltimore  (Nov.  13),  and  in  1885  in 
a  lecture  in  Fitchburg  (June  2)  showed  the  story  to  be  unfounded.  An  account 
of  Mr.  Marshall's  labors  was  given  by  him  at  the  meeting  of  the  American  His 
torical  Association  at  Detroit,  Dec.  28,  1900,  and  will  be  found  in  the  Annual 
Report  for  1900.  The  results  so  far  were  indicated  in  an  article  in  the  School 
Weekly  of  Chicago,  Feb.  22,  1901,  by  which  it  appears  that  the  following  authors 
of  school  books  acknowledge  that  they  are  convinced  by  the  evidence  presented 
by  Mr.  Marshall  and  announce  their  intentions  either  to  omit  or  revise  their  ac 
counts  of  Whitman :  H.  E.  Scudder,  D.  H.  Montgomery,  J.  B.  McMaster,  W.  F. 
Gordy,  A.  F.  Blaisdell,  and  Mrs.  A.  H.  Burton.  Edward  Eggleston  wrote  that  he 
did  not  "  need  to  be  warned  against  such  a  fake  as  the  Whitman  fable,  which  I 
am  every  now  and  then  entreated  to  insert."  John  Fiske  wrote  :  "  You  have 
entirely  demolished  the  Whitman  delusion,  and  by  so  doing  have  made  yourself 
a  public  benefactor.  I  am  sorry  to  say  that  I  was  taken  in  by  Barrows  and  Gray, 
and  supposed  what  they  said  about  Whitman  to  be  true."  The  story  is  not  to  be 
found  in  any  of  Mr.  Fiske's  printed  books,  but  he  incorporated  it  in  his  centennial 
oration  at  Astoria  in  1892.  That  he  had  been  appealed  to  as  early  as  February, 
1895,  to  put  it  into  his  text-book  would  appear  from  his  letter  to  President  Pen- 


52  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

The  next  episode  in  the  history  of  the  diffusion  of  the 
legend  of  Marcus  Whitman  is  the  wide  celebration  of  the 
semi-centennial  anniversary  of  his  death.  At  the  meeting 
of  the  American  Board  in  New  Haven  in  October,  1897, 
Mr.  G.  L.  Weed  of  Philadelphia  delivered  an  address,  and 
a  committee  was  appointed  to  arrange  for  memorial  services 
in  Boston  and  Washington,  and  for  the  general  observance 
of  Whitman  day.1  Sunday,  November  28,  was  selected,  and 
its  observance  was  urged  in  The  Congregationalist.1*  As  a 
result  it  was  reported  in  The  Outlook  that  "  on  last  Sunday 
the  Congregational  Churches  of  the  United  States  very  gen 
erally  celebrated  the  fiftieth  anniversary  of  the  massacre  of 
Dr.  Whitman,"  and,  in  explanation,  The  Outlook  reminded 
its  readers  that  "Whitman  was  the  first  to  discover  the 

rose  of  Whitman  College  which  is  published  in  The  Advance,  March  14,  1895,  in 
which  he  says :  "  If  my  series  of  works  on  American  History  ever  come  down  to 
such  a  recent  period,  I  shall  try  to  do  justice  to  the  noble  Doctor.  If  not  I  shall 
at  some  time  revise  my  oration  and  print  it  in  a  volume  of  essays." 

It  will  not  be  out  of  the  way  for  me  to  say  here  that  when  I  wrote  my  article 
"  The  Legend  of  Marcus  Whitman,"  published  in  the  American  Historical 
Review  in  January,  1901,  I  knew  nothing  of  Mr.  Marshall's  extensive  researches, 
to  which  my  attention  was  first  called  in  December,  1900.  I  was  likewise  igno 
rant  of  an  article  in  The  American  Catholic  Historical  Researches  for  Oct.  1899, 
187-197,  by  H.  M.  Beadle,  in  which  the  same  conclusions  are  reached  as  in  my  own 
paper. 

1  The  Congregationalist,  Oct.  21.  1897. 

2  Ibid.,  Nov.  18.     In  this  issue  William  A.  Mowry  published  a  long  article  on 
Whitman,  in  which  he  succeeded  in  finding  support  for  his  views  by  leaving  out 
from  his  quotations  from  the  records  anything  that  militated  against  his  position. 
In  the  November  number  of  the  Ladies'  Home  Journal,  Mr.  George  L.  Weed 
brought  the  complete  Spalding  legend  before  hundreds  of  thousands  of  readers. 
Dr.  Nixon's  account  in  his  Oration  of  the  action   of  the  Board  may  be  quoted : 
"  The  American  Board  were  aroused  from  a  silence  of  fifty  years,  and  began  to 
ask,  What  can  we  do  ?     They  appointed  a  committee  of  their  ablest  men  to 
recommend  special  services  in  the  churches  on  the  fiftieth  anniversary  of  Whit 
man's  death,  and  many  eloquent  discourses  were  heard  all  over  the  East  and 
Middle  West."    Mention  may  be  made  at  this  point  of  the  part  played  in  diffus 
ing  a  knowledge  of  the  Whitman  story  by  those  who  were  engaged  in  raising 
money  for  an  enlarged  endowment  for  Whitman  College.     Dr.  Nixon  makes 
special  mention  of  the  labors  of  Miss  Virginia  Dox  in  New  England,  New  York, 
Ohio,  and  Michigan.     "  There  are  10,000  interested  hearers  and  readers  of  the 
Whitman  story  to-day  in  all  New  England,  where  there  were  ten,  five  years  ago." 
Whitman  Coll  Quart.,  Ill,  No.  4,  14  and  16. 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS    WHITMAN  53 

designs  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and  the  first  to  report 
those  designs  to  the  Government  at  Washington,  whereby 
the  territory  which  now  includes  the  States  of  Oregon,  Wash 
ington,  and  a  part  of  Idaho  was  saved  to  our  country."  1 

On  that  November  28  the  labors  of  the  obscure  and  for 
gotten  missionary,  Henry  H.  Spalding,  attained  their  cul 
mination,  and  from  hundreds  of  pulpits  and  to  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  readers  during  that  month  went  forth  his  story 
of  How  Marcus  Whitman  Saved  Oregon. 

The  coronation  of  the  work  was  the  vote  for  the  Hall  of 
Fame,  two  years  later. 

Rising  obscurely  in  the  columns  of  local  papers,  spreading 
slowly  in  missionary  channels,  the  stream  gathers  volume 
and  headway,  successfully  defeats  all  effort  to  arrest  its 
course  and  rolls  onward,  until,  in  its  particular  province 
in  American  History,  it  has  washed  away  landmarks  and 
altered  the  face  of  the  country.  Whether  the  stream  can  be 
returned  to  its  own  channel  and  the  history  of  the  Oregon 
question  be  restored  to  its  original  outlines  as  they  existed 
before  1865  is  open  to  question.  In  one  of  his  early  articles 
the  Reverend  William  Barrows  after  a  highly  imaginative 
picture  of  Whitman's  interview  with  Webster  remarked:  — 

"In  a  century  or  so  that  scene  will  furnish  one  of  the 
grandest  historical  paintings  of  North  America,  Webster, 
Whitman,  and  Oregon :  it  will  take  about  a  century  to  clear 
the  foreground  of  a  thousand  other  men  and  petty  scenes." 

It  has  really  taken  only  about  fifteen  years.  The  fore 
ground  is  already  clear  of  Wyeth  and  Kelly,  of  Jason  Lee 
and  Samuel  Parker,  of  Senators  Linn  and  Benton,  and  other 
protagonists  of  Oregon.  The  ambition  of  some  of  the  present 
apostles  of  the  Legend  is  higher  still.  One  of  them,  the 
Hon.  J.  Wilder  Fairbank,  who  delivers  an  illustrated  lecture 
on  TJie  Ride  that  Saved  an  Empire,  concludes  this  effort  with 

1  The  Outlook,  Dec.  4.  The  celebration  in  Washington  took  place  Dec.  9,  and 
the  meeting  was  addressed  by  Rev.  Dr.  Newman,  Justice  Brewer,  and  Gen.  O.  O. 
Howard.  In  Philadelphia  a  memorial  to  Whitman  was  dedicated  Nov.  29.  The 
semi-centennial  was  also  celebrated  at  Walla  Walla,  where  a  monument  was 
erected.  See  Whitman  College  Quarterly,  Dec.  1897. 


54  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

a  program  which  must  make  some  of  the  elder  generation 
"stare  and  gasp." 

"Two  names  I  purpose  linking  together  before  the  youth 
of  our  land  —  Abraham  Lincoln  and  Marcus  Whitman.  Two 
patriots,  two  martyrs,  these  two  men,  lineal  cousins,  with 
the  blood  from  their  Whitman  sire  in  their  veins,  no  wonder 
they  did  such  noble  deeds,  stood  at  their  posts,  died  for 
their  country.  All  honor  to  such  heroes  of  the  past.  Let 
us  keep  in  touch  with  them  through  the  onward  march  of 
the  twentieth  century.  In  the  interest  of  truth,  justice,  and 
American  honor."  l 

To  judge  from  the  past,  the  prophecy  of  the  Reverend  Wil 
liam  Barrows  in  1883,  and  the  modest  proposal  of  J.  Wilder 
Fairbank  in  1901,  are  quite  as  likely  to  attain  realization  as 
the  disquieting  vox  clamantis  of  criticism  is  to  get  a  respectful 
hearing.2 

* 

PART  II 

THE  genesis  and  diffusion  of  the  Legend  of  Marcus  Whit 
man  have  been  set  forth  in  detail  to  demonstrate  beyond  a 
doubt  that  the  story  was  new  in  1864  or  1865,  and  that, 
widespread  as  has  been  its  diffusion  since,  every  single  ex 
tant  version  is  a  branch  from  that  parent  stem,  and  depends 
upon  testimony  elicited  subsequent  to  that  first  publication. 
It  will  now  be  my  purpose  to  make  clear  the  real  cause  and 
purpose  of  Marcus  Whitman's  journey  east  in  1842-43,  to 
examine  the  evidence  of  his  political  services  in  Washington 

1  New  Haven  Evening  Register,  Feb.  19,  1901. 

2  For  the  benefit  of  any  who  have  a  curiosity  to  see  how  criticism  affects  the 
advocates  of  the  Whitman  story,  I   append   references  to  some  of  the  more 
important  comments  on  and  replies  to  my  article  in  The  American  Historical  Re 
view.     The  Chicago  Inter-Ocean,  Dec.  30,  1900,  Jan.  9,  10,  11,  21,  26,  and  Feb.  9 ; 
The  Congregationalist,  Jan.  19  ;   The  Advance,  Jan.  17  and  24;  The  Interior,  Jan. 
17,  and  Feb.   14 ;  The   Christian    Work,  Mch.  7  ;   The  Homiletic  Review,  July, 
1901  (Professor  H.  W.  Parker) ;  Journal  of  Education,  Jan.  24  (W.  A.  Mowry), 
and  President  Penrose  of  Whitman  College  in  the  Boston  Transcript  of  Jan.  21, 
and  in  many  other  prominent  papers  simultaneously.     The  last  was  a  shot  fired 
in  tbe  dark,  as  the  author  had  not  read  the  article  to  which  he  replied. 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS    WHITMAN  55 

and  of  his  relation  to  the  Oregon  Emigration  of  1843,  to 
compare  the  legend  with  the  real  history,  and  to  offer  such 
explanation  as  can  be  given  of  the  origin  of  some  of  the 
peculiar  features  of  the  fiction. 

It  will  not  be  superfluous,  perhaps,  to  remind  the  reader 
that  the  evidence  advanced  is  the  contemporary  spontaneous 
testimony  of  the  actors  themselves  at  the  time,  and  not  their 
recollections  or  reports  of  their  recollections,  or  reports  of 
their  subsequent  conversations  about  their  recollections  first 
put  in  writing  twenty  to  forty  years  later. 

The  real  cause  of  Dr.  Whitman's  journey  to  the  east  was' 
the  decision  of  the  American  Board  of  Commissioners  for 
Foreign  Missions  to  discontinue  the  southern  branch  of  the 
mission,  and  his  purpose  was  to  secure  a  reversal  of  that 
order,  and  reinforcements  from  the  Board,  and  to  bring 
back,  if  possible,  a  few  Christian  families.  The  rapidly 
increasing  immigration  into  Oregon  made  an  increase  of 
Protestant  missions  seem  essential  if  Oregon  was  to  be  saved 
from  becoming  Catholic.  • 

Owing  to  difficulties  of  the  work  among  the  small  and 
widely  scattered  groups  of  Indians  and  to  dissensions  among 
the  missionaries  l  of  the  Oregon  mission,  the  Prudential  Com 
mittee  of  the  American  Board  passed  the  following  resolu 
tion,  February  23,  1842:  "That  the  Rev.  Henry  H.  Spalding. 
be  recalled,  with  instructions  to  return  by  the  first  direct  and 
suitable  opportunity;  that  Mr.  William  H.  Gray  be  advised 
to  return  home,  and  also  the  Rev.  Asa  B.  Smith  on  account 
of  the  illness  of  his  wife;  that  Dr.  Marcus  Whitman  and 

1  Mrs.  "Whitman  wrote  her  father  in  October,  1 840  T"  The  man  who  came 
with  us  [Spalding]  is  one  who  never  ought  to  have  come.  My  dear  husband  has 
suffered  more  from  him  in  consequence  of  his  wicked  jealousy,  and  his  great 
pique  towards  me,  than  can  be  known  in  this  world.  But  he  suffers  not  alone  — 
the  whole  mission  suffers,  which  is  most  to  be  deplored.  It  has  nearly  broken 
up  the  mission."  See  the  whole  letter  in  Transactions  of  the  Oregon  Pioneer 
Association  for  1893,  pp.  128-133.  Mr.  Spalding  had  been  a  suitor  of  Narcissa 
Prentiss  (Mrs.  Whitman).  —  Mrs.  Dye's  McLoughlin  and  Old  Oregon,  p.  19.  On  a 
point  like  this,  Mrs.  Dye  would  aim  at  fidelity  to  fact,  and  her  statement  is  prac 
tically  confirmed  by  Mrs.  Whitman's  letter. 


56  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

Mr.  Cornelius  Rogers  be  designated  to  the  northern  branch 
of  the  mission ;  and  that  the  two  last  named  be  authorized  to     A 
dispose  of   the  mission  property  in  the  southern  branch  of      ^ 
the  mission."  x 

This  action  of  the  Prudential  Committee  was  discussed 
at  the  meeting  of  the  Oregon  Mission,  September  26,  1842. 
Mr.  Gray  requested  that  he  might  be  released  to  establish  a 
boarding-school  under  the  auspices  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company's  officials,  which  was  refused.  On  the  28th  it  was 

"Resolved:  That  if  arrangements  can  be  made  to  continue 
the  operations  of  this  station,  that  Dr.  Marcus  Whitman  be  at 
liberty  and  advised  to  visit  the  United  States  as  soon  as  practi 
cable  to  confer  with  the  committee  of  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.  in  regard 
to  the  interests  of  this  mission.2 

"E.  WALKER,  moder. 
"  GUSHING  EELLS,  Scribe, 
«H.  H.  SPALDING." 

Mr.  Walker's  diary  for  the  days  of  the  meeting  of  IMF 
Oregon  Mission  reads :  — 

"Monday,  26.  Kose  quite  early  this  morning,  and  made  prep 
arations  for  leaving  our  camp.  We  rode  quite  fast  and  reached 
the  station  of  Dr.  W.'s  about  ten,  and  found  Spalding  there. 
Did  nothing  of  business  until  evening,  when  we  had  rather  a 
session  discussing  Mr.  Gray's  case.  Saw  a  man  from  Maine, 
and  had  considerable  conversation  with  him  on  the  state  of 
things  in  the  States. 

"  Tuesday,  27.    We  did  not  do  much  to-day.     The  Dr.  pre- 

1  Records  of  the  Prudential    Committee  of  the  American  Board  of  Commissioners 
for  Foreign  Missions,  at  the  Congregational  House,  Boston.     Cf .  The  Missionary 
Herald,  Jan.  1843,  p.  14,  and  the  Report  of  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.  for  1842,  p.  194.' 
The  Indians  at  times  were  insolent  and  threatening.     Cf.  Whitman's  letter  of 
November,  1841.     Trans,  of  the  Or.  Pioneer  Assoc.,  1891,  154-62. 

2  From  letter-book  Oregon  Indians  in  the  records  of  the  Board.     The  letter  is 
dated,  "  Waiilatpu,  Oct.  3d,  1842,"  and  endorsed  "  Rec'd,  30  Mar.,  1843."    For 
the  action  of  the  mission  see  Miss.  Herald,  Sept.  1843,  p.  356,  also  Report  of  the 
A.  B.  C.  F.  M.,  1843,  169,  where  these  records  are  correctly  summarized. 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS    WHITMAN  57 

ferred  some  charges  against  myself  and  Mr.  E.  which  we  did 
not  admit,  and  held  him  to  the  talk  we  had  last  summer.  The 
meeting  in  the  evening  was  held,  and  it  was  interesting  to 
me. 

"  Wednesday,  28.  Kose  this  morning  with  the  determination 
to  leave,  and  found  Mr.  S.  had  the  same  view,  and  was  making 
preparations  to*  leave,  as  he  felt  that  nothing  could  be  done. 
At  breakfast  tSe  Dr.  let  out  what  was  his  plan  in  view  of  the 
state  of  things.  We  persuaded  them  to  get  together  and  talk 
matters  over.  I  think  they  felt  some  better  afterwards.  Then 
the  question  was  submitted  to  us  of  the  Dr.'s  going  home,  which 
we  felt  that  it  was  one  of  too  much  importance  to  be  decided  in 
a  moment,  but  finally  came  to  the  conclusion  if  he  could  put 
things  at  that  station  in  such  a  state  that  it  would  be  safe  we 
could  consent  to  his  going,  and  with  that  left  them  and  made  a 
start  for  home."  l 

On  October  3,  1842,  Mr.  Walker  wrote  to  the  Board  a 
long  letter  regarding  the  work  in  Oregon,  urging  them  to 
keep  up  the  missions  for  the  benefit  of  the  incoming  white 
settlers  as  well  as  for  the  Indians  for  whom  they  had  been 
established.  "With  this  view  of  the  case,"  he  writes:  — 

"  You  will  see  why  we  were  unwilling  to  abandon  the  South 
branch,  for,  as  it  seemed  to  us,  by  giving  that  up  we  were  giving 
up  the  whole  mission.  Notwithstanding  we  thought  that  the 
object  of  your  letter  had  been  accomplished  by  the  reconcilia 
tion  which  had  taken  place,  still  we  felt  ourselves  placed  in  a 
trying  situation,  we  hardly  knew  what  course  to  pursue,  but 
concluded  to  wait  until  we  could  receive  an  answer  to  the 
[letter  of  the]  committee  of  the  mission  stating  that  the  diffi 
culties  of  the  mission  were  settled.  We  found  too  that  there 
was  a  difficulty  in  sustaining  the  mission,  as  so  many  had 
withdrawn  and  as  the  reinforcements  had  stopped  at  the  Islands 
[Hawaiian  Islands].  After  considerable  consultation  without 
coming  to  any  definite  conclusion,  and  as  we  were  about  starting 
for  our  place,  a  proposition  was  made  by  Dr.  Whitman  for  him 

1  From  the  MS.  in  the  possession  of  the  Oregon  Hist.  Soc. 


58  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

to  return  to  the  States  this  winter  to  confer  with  the  Prudential 
Committee  and  conduct  a  reinforcement  out  next  summer  if  it 
was  thought  best  to  continue  the  mission.  At  least  something 
definite  could  be  decided  upon.  The  proposition  being  presented 
just  as  we  were  on  the  eve  of  leaving  we  felt  at  first  that  we 
could  not  then  give  a  decided  answer  to  it.  We  wanted  him  to 
think  and  pray  over  it  and  proposed  we  return  and  send  in 
writing  our  conclusion.  But  we  were  told  that  there  was  no 
time  to  be  lost,  that  we  must  decide  it  now,  or  it  would  be  too 
late.  After  some  more  consultation,  we  stated  that  if  the  sta 
tion  could  be  put  in  a  situation  which  would  render  it  safe  to 
be  left  and  after  proper  arrangements  could  be  made,  we  would 
consent  to  Dr.  Whitman's  going  to  the  States.  We  do  not 
approve  of  the  hasty  manner  in  which  this  question  was  decided. 
Nothing  it  seemed  to  us  but  stern  necessity  induced  us  to  decide 
in  the  manner  we  did.  It  seemed  death  to  put  the  proposition 
in  force,  and  worse  than  death  to  remain  as  we  were.  I  have 
no  doubt  if  his  plan  succeeds  it  will  be  of  great  good  to  the 
mission  and  the  country."  * 

This  letter  was  endorsed  by  Gushing  Eells :  "  I  am  happy 
to  say  that  the  subjects  of  this  letter  have  been  frequently 
discussed  of  late  by  Mr.  Walker  and  myself.  I  do  not  now 
recollect  that  there  has  been  any  important  difference  in  the 
conclusions  arrived  at."  Mr.  Spalding  wrote  from  Clear- 
water,  October  15,  a  letter  of  twenty  quarto  pages  in  answer 
to  the  letter  of  the  Board  of  February  26,  1842.2  It  is  a 
reply  to  the  charges  preferred  against  him  and  contains  not 
a  word  about  Whitman's  journey.  Mr.  W.  H.  Gray  wrote 
from  Waiilatpu,  October  3,  1842,  to  the  Board  to  announce 
his  appointment  as  "  Secular  Agent  and  General  Superinten 
dent  of  the  Oregon  Institute  "  and  his  release  by  the  mission. 
He  adds :  "  Dr.  Whitman  will  be  able  to  give  you  the  par 
ticulars  respecting  the  affairs  of  the  mission,  and  the  results 
of  the  last  meeting,"  etc.,  etc.8 

1  Letter-book  as  before.    Cf.  the  "  Remarks  "  in  the  Miss.  Herald,  Sept.  1843, 
356. 

2  Letter-book,  Oregon  Indians.  8  Rid. 


THE   LEGEND  OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  59 

Mrs.  Whitman  wrote  her  brother  and  sister,  September 
29,  1842 :  "  I  sit  down  to  write  you,  but  in  great  haste.  My 
beloved  husband  has  about  concluded  to  start  next  Monday 
to  go  to  the  United  States.  ...  If  you  are  still  in  Quincy 
you  may  not  see  him  until  his  return,  as  his  business  requires 
great  haste.  He  wishes  to  reach  Boston  as  early  as  possible 
so  as  to  make  arrangements  to  return  next  summer,  if  pros 
pered.  The  interests  of  the  missionary  cause  in  this  country 
calls  him  home."1  The  next  day  Mrs.  Whitman  wrote  to 
her  parents,  brothers,  and  sisters.  "You  will  be  surprised 
if  this  letter  reaches  you  to  learn  that  the  bearer  is  my  dear 
husband,  and  that  you  will,  after  a  few  days,  have  the 
pleasure  of  seeing  him.  May  you  have  a  joyful  meeting. 
He  goes  upon  important  business  as  connected  with  the 
missionary  cause,  the  cause  of  Christ  in  this  land,  which  I 
leave  for  him  to  explain  when  you  see  him,  because  I 
have  not  time  to  enlarge.  He  has  but  yesterday  fully 
made  up  his  mind  to  go,  and  he  wishes  to  start  Monday, 
and  this  is  Friday.  .  .  .  He  wishes  to  cross  the  mountains 
during  this  month,  I  mean  October,  and  reach  St.  Louis 
about  the  first  of  Dec.,  if  he  is  not  detained  by  the  cold, 
or  hostile  Indians.  O  may  the  Lord  preserve  him  through 
the  dangers  of  the  way.  He  has  for  a  companion  Mr. 
Lovejoy,  a  respectable,  intelligent  man  and  a  lawyer,  but 
not  a  Christian,  who  expects  to  accompany  him  all  the 
way  to  Boston,  as  his  friends  are  in  that  region,  and  per 
haps  to  Washington."2 

Mrs.  Whitman  wrote  to  her  absent  husband  from  Was- 
kopum,  March  4,  1843 :  "  I  have  never  felt  to  regret  in  the 
least  that  you  have  gone  —  for  I  fully  believe  the  hand  of  the 
Lord  was  in  it  —  and  that  he  has  yet  blessings  in  store  for 
Oregon.  Yes,  for  these  poor  degraded  Indians."  Again, 
from  Waiilatpu,  May  18,  1843,  "  wishing  you  my  dear  hus 
band  ...  as  speedy  a  return  to  the  bosom  of  your  family 
as  the  business  of  the  Lord  upon  which  you  have  gone  will 

1  Transactions  of  the  Oregon  Pioneer  Association,  1893,  165. 

2  Ibid.,  167-68. 


60  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

admit  of."1  Still  again,  in  a  letter  to  her  sister,  March  11, 
in  remarking  upon  the  sacrifice  of  so  long  separation  from 
her  husband,  Mrs.  Whitman  said:  "I  can  see  no  earthly 
inducement  sufficiently  paramount  to  cause  me  voluntarily  to 
take  upon  myself  such  a  painful  trial.  .  .  .  But  there  is  one 
object,  our  blessed  Saviour,  for  whose  sake,  I  trust,  both 
you  as  well  as  we  are  willing  if  called  to  it,  to  suffer  all 
things.  It  was  for  Him,  for  the  advancement  of  His  cause, 
that  I  could  say  to  my  beloved  husband,  i  Go ;  take  all  the 
time  necessary  to  accomplish  His  work;  and  the  Lord  go 
with  and  bless  you.'  "2 

If  we  compare  the  situation  and  purpose  revealed  by  these 
contemporary  private  letters  from  all  the  parties  concerned 
with  the  accounts  published  by  Spalding3  and  Gray4  from 
which  the  Legend  of  Marcus  Whitman  has  been  derived  it  is 
clear  that  Spalding's  account  of  the  transaction  is  purely  ficti 
tious.  There  is  not  a  hint  of  the  Walla  Walla  dinner  nor  any 
place  for  it  in  the  chain  of  events,  and  on  the  other  hand  Spald 
ing's  narrative  suppresses  the  real  facts.  More  than  that,  "  the 
colony  from  the  Red  River  "  over  the  "glad  news  "  of  whose 
approach  there  was  such  rejoicing,  arrived  the  year  before,5 

1  Letter-book,  Oregon  Indians. 

2  Transactions  of  the  Oregon  Pioneer  Association,  1893,  155.     That  Whitman 
went  east  on  the  business  of  the  mission  was  a  matter  of  common  knowledge  at 
the  time.     "  In  1842  Dr.  Whitman  visited  the  United  States  to  obtain  further 
assistance,  in  order  to  strengthen  the  efforts  that  had  already  been  made.  .  .  . 
In  1843  Dr.  Whitman  returned  again  to  Oregon  and  resumed  his  labors."     Ten 
Years  in   Oregon,  by  D.  Lee  and  J.  H.  Frost,  N.  Y.,  1844,  213.     According  to 
Nixon,  Mrs.  Whitman's  diary  reveals  nothing  as  to  a  political  object.     He  ex 
plains  this  silence  on  the  ground  that  absolute  secrecy  was  necessary.     How 
Marcus    Whitman  Saved   Oregon,  Chicago,  1895,  107.     Yet,  according  to  Gray, 
Whitman  defiantly  announced  his  purpose  at  the  Fort  Walla  Walla  dinner. 
Gray's    Oregon,  288.     Spalding,  in  his  contemporary  letter  to  Dr.  White,  the 
sub-Indian  Agent,  mentions  Whitman's  visit  to  the  States,  but  gives  no  reason. 
White's  Ten   Years  in   Oregon,  202.     Gray's  Oregon,  235. 

8  Supra,  p.  9. 

*  History  of  Oregon,  288,  and  supra,  p.  9. 

6  Sir  George  Simpson,  An  Overland  Journey  Round  the  World,  Philadelphia, 
1847,  I,  62  and  94.  There  were  twenty-three  families  in  the  party.  "  Chaqtie 
anne'e  il  vient  du  Canada  un  certain  nombre  de  families  qui  ne  soiit  point  engagees. 


THE  LEGEND  OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  61 

and  its  arrival  was  reported  by  Whitman  without  comment  or 


concern. 


In  an  ordinary  case  the  irreconcilable  divergences  between 
the  unimpeachable  contemporary  testimony  and  the  narra 
tives  of  Spalding  and  Gray  would  be  enough  to  prove  their 
utter  untrustworthiness  as  witnesses.  In  this  case,  how- 
CVQT,  there  is  so  much  disposition  to  save  every  feature  of 
the  Spalding  story  that  is  not  specifically  disproved  that  It 
seems  to  be  necessary  by  additional  examples  to  show  the 
absolute  unreliability  of  these  sponsors  of  the  legend.  The 
most  conclusive  proof  of  Spalding's  untrustworthiness  if  not 
dishonesty  in  matters  relating  to  this  missionary  history  can 
be  found  in  his  Executive  Document  37 ,  where  he  constantly 
garbles  and  interpolates  his  quotations.  An  example  may 
be  given  by  means  of  parallel  columns.  While  Dr.  Whitman 
was  absent  from  his  mission  on  his  journey  east  in  1842-1843 
his  mill  was  burned  by  the  Indians.  Elijah  White,  the 
United  States  sub-Indian  Agent,  made  a  special  investigation 
of  the  circumstances  and  reported  them  in  his  letter  of  April 
1,  1843,  to  Commissioner  Crawford  at  Washington. 

A  la  fin  de  1841,  il  en  est  arrive  trente  de  la  colonie  de  la  Riviere  Rouge  ;  pres 
de  la  moitie  s'est  etabli  au  Ouallamet."  Du  Flot  de  Mofras,  Explorations  du 
Territoire  de  I' Oregon,  etc.,  pendant  les  Annees  184.0,  184-1,  et  18^2,  Paris,  1844,  II, 
209.  Cf.  Bancroft's  Oregon,  I,  252 ;  also  Myron  Eells,  History  of  Indian  Missions 
on  the  Pacific  Coast,  Philadelphia,  1882,  166,  and  his  pamphlet  Marcus  Whit 
man,  M.  D.,  in  which  Spalding's  own  diary  is  quoted  under  date  of  Sept.  10, 
1841.  "  Arrived  at  Colville.  Mr.  McDonald's  brother  is  here  from  a  party  of 
twenty-three  families  from  the  Red  River,  crossing  the  mountains  to  settle  on  the 
Cowlitz,  as  half  servants  of  the  company,"  p.  18.  It  is  not  improbable  that  the 
missionaries  in  1841-2  may  have  talked  over  the  bearing  of  this  immigration 
upon  the  future  of  Oregon,  and  that  Spalding's  dramatic  scene  at  Fort  Walla 
Walla  may  have  been  suggested  to  his  imagination  by  the  hazy  recollection  of 
some  such  discussion.  The  mistake  in  the  date  of  the  immigration  was  not  dis 
covered  until  the  Whitman  controversy  arose.  This  may  be  accounted  for  by 
the  fact  that  a  similar  mistake  was  made  by  Gustavus  Hines  in  his  Oregon :  Its 
History,  Condition,  and  Prospects,  etc.,  Buffalo,  1851,  387.  This  book  was 
written  while  Ilines  was  in  the  east  (cf.  Bancroft,  Oregon,  I,  225,  note)  and  the 
mistake  was  a  not  unnatural  slip  of  the  memory.  Gray,  who  used  Hiues  as  a 
source,  gives  an  account  of  this  colony  on  pp.  212-213,  under  the  date  1842. 

1  Letter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Am.  Board,  Nov.  1841,  in  Trans,  of  the  Oregon 
Pioneer  Assoc.,  1891,  158. 


62  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

In  Elijah  White's  Letter:  In  Spalding's  quotation: 

The  chief  Feathercap  "ac-  The  chief  Feathercap  "ac 
knowledged  his  opinion  that  knowledged  it  as  his  opinion 
the  mill  was  burnt  purposely  that  the  mill  was  burnt  pur- 
by  some  disaffected  persons  to-  posely  by  some  disaffected  per- 
ward  Dr.  Whitman.  I  spoke  sons  toward  Dr.  Whitman, 
kindly,"  etc.1  The  mill,  lumber,  and  a  great 

quantity  of  grain  was  burnt  by 
Catholic  Indians,  instigated 
by  Eomanists,  to  break  up  the 
Protestant  mission,  and  pre 
vent  supplies  to  the  oncoming 
emigration  by  Dr.  Whitman."  a 

Here  is  a  deliberate  interpolation  in  an  official  document 
of  the  year  1843  to  manufacture  evidence  of  a  knowledge  of 
Dr.  Whitman's  plans  as  represented  by  Spalding,  and  of  such 
malignant  hostility  on  the  part  of  the  Catholics  as  would 
render  plausible  his  accusations  in  regard  to  the  Whitman 
massacre.  Again,  where  Dr.  White  quotes  an  old  chief  as 
saying  in  regard  to  the  conference  he  was  holding :  "  Clark 
pointed  to  this  day,  to  you,  and  this  occasion ;  we  have  long 
waited  in  expectation ;  sent  three  of  our  sons  to  Red  River 
School  to  prepare  for  it,"  Spalding  changed  the  last  clause  to 
"sent  three  of  our  sons  to  the  rising  sun  to  obtain  the  book 
from  Heaven,"  thus  manufacturing  first-hand  confirmation 
of  the  story  of  the  Indians  who  came  to  St.  Louis  for  the 
Bible.3 

1  Ten  Years  in  Oregon:  Travels  and  Adventures  of  Doctor  E,  White  and  Lady, 
etc.,  Ithaca,  N.  Y.,  1850,  191;  and  Gray's  Oregon,  229. 

2  Exec.  Doc.  37,  13. 

3  Cf.    Ten    Years  in   Oregon,    185,  and  Gray's   Oregon,  225,  with  Exec.  Doc. 
57,13.     Oil  the    story  of  this  visit   of  the  Flathead  Indians,  see  p.  105.    In  his 
text  of  this  letter  of  White's,  Spalding  made  a  great  number  of  minor  alterations. 
Spalding  was  an  Indian  Agent  on  the  Umpqua  River  in  1851.   Anson  Dart,  Supt. 
of  Indian  Affairs  in  Oregon,  asked  to  have  him  superseded  for  neglect  of  duty. 
(House  Exec.  Docs.,  32nd  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  vol.  ii.  pt.  3,  p.  472.)   Spalding  then  wrote 
the  American  Home  Missionary  Society  that  Dart  had  made  a  treaty  "  with  the 
tribes  of  the  Middle  District,  an  article  of  which  provides  that  no  American  (i.  e., 
Protestant  missionary)  shall  ever  again  enter  their  country."     He  describes  his 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS    WHITMAN  63 

These  examples  might  be  multiplied,  but  it  is  unnecessary; 
such  instances  as  these  show  beyond  question  that  not  an 
affidavit  or  resolution  or  interview  or  narrative  in  Executive 
Document  37  can  be  accepted  as  evidence  unless  otherwise 
authenticated  and  confirmed. 

Inasmuch  as  W.  H.  Gray  is  commonly  considered  an  in 
dependent  contemporary  witness  for  the  Whitman  story,  it 
is  necessary  to  examine  his  trustworthiness.  Gray  was  at 
Waiilatpu  when  the  missionaries  discussed  the  recall  of 
Spalding  and  the  discontinuance  of  the  Southern  mission. 
Yet  in  letters  in  the  Daily  and  Weekly  Astorian,  reprinted 
in  Circular  No.  8  of  the  Pioneer  and  Historical  Society  of 
Oregon,  he  said :  "  The  order  to  abandon  the  mission,  I  con 
fess,  is  new  to  me;"  and  in  reply  to  Mrs.  F.  F.  Victor's 
assertion  that  Dr.  Whitman  went  east  to  secure  a  reversal  of 


emotions  at  being  prohibited  from  taking  up  his  work  again  with  the  Indians. 
"  I  lifted  up  my  lamentations  amid  the  wild  roar  of  the  ocean's  waves.  I  wept  for 
the  poor  Nez-Perces.  ...  I  wept  as  I  called  to  mind  the  many  years  of  hard 
labor,  etc.  ...  all  apparently  laid  a  sacrifice  at  the  bloody  shrine  of  the  Papacy, 
by  the  baptized  hands  of  an  American  officer,  the  husband  of  a  Presbyterian  wife ! 
The  Superintendent  was  of  course  influenced  to  this  anti- American  step  by  the 
same  influences  which  instigated  the  poor  benighted  Indians  to  butcher  their 
best  friends.  .  .  .  Henceforth  my  field  of  labor  is  among  my  countrymen  in  this 
valley.  I  am  now  about  in  v  master's  business,  —  preaching  the  Gospel."  (The 
Home  Missionary,  April,  1852,  276.)  The  next  number  of  the  Home  Mission 
ary  contained  a  letter  from  Dart,  who  happened  to  be  in  New  York,  in  which  he 
said :  "  There  is  no  truth  in  Mr.  Spalding's  statements  in  question."  No  treaties 
had  been  made  with  the  Middle  District  tribes,  and  in  the  thirteen  treaties  with 
the  tribes  west  of  the  Cascade  Mountains  then  before  the  President  there  was 
"  not  one  word  .  .  .  touching  the  subject,  directly  or  indirectly  as  stated  by  Mr. 
Spalding  under  the  head  of  '  Treaty  of  Expulsion.'  "  The  Home  Missionary, 
May,  1852,  20. 

On  December  7,  1857,  Elkanah  Walker  wrote  to  Secretary  Treat  of  the 
American  Board  :  "  I  am  compelled  to  believe  until  I  have  better  evidence  that 
Mr.  Spalding's  publication  in  regard  to  Dr.  Dart  was  more  with  the  intention  of 
effecting  the  removal  of  him  from  his  office  of  Superintendent  of  Indian  Affairs 
in  Oregon  than  because  he  believed  such  treaty  had  been  made.  My  reason  for 
this  is,  in  conversation  with  Mr.  Spalding,  I  said  I  was  present,  and  no  such 
treaty  was  made  excluding  Protestant  missionaries.  He  replied, '  I  knew  it.  He 
could  make  no  such  treaty.' "  From  vol.  248  of  the  correspondence  of  the 
missionaries  in  the  records  of  the  Board.  For  this  last  extract  I  am  indebted 
to  Mr.  W.  I.  Marshall. 


64  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

the  order  he  denied  that  a  meeting  of  the  mission  was  held 
in  September,  1842,  which  authorized  Whitman's  journey.1 
He  thus  deliberately  denied  something  that  he  must  have 
known  perfectly  well  if  he  remembered  anything  at  all 
about  the  transaction,  and  professed  ignorance  of  another  fact 
of  which  he  could  not  have  been  ignorant. 

Again  he  solemnly  vouched  for  his  account  of  the  Walla 
Walla  dinner  as  based  on  his  own  knowledge,  and  for  the 
story  of  Governor  Simpson's  negotiations  in  Washington  and 
Whitman's  success  in  frustrating  them  as  derived  from  Whit 
man  himself.2  Gray  shared  Spalding's  intense  prejudices 
and  vindictiveness  toward  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company  and 
the  Catholic  missionaries,  and  consequently  his  History  of 
Oregon  is  very  untrustworthy  as  a  source  of  Oregon  history.3 

When  it  was  brought  out  during  the  Whitman  controversy 
in  1881-5  that  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  Colony  from 
the  Red  River  arrived  in  1841,  and  therefore  could  not  have 
afforded  the  occasion  for  the  dramatic  scene  at  Walla  Walla 
and  for  Whitman's  resolution  to  go  east  in  September,  1842, 
Spalding's  "inaccuracy  in  his  recollection  of  details  "  was  ac 
knowledged,  but  the  rejection  of  the  great  facts  of  the  history 
on  account  of  "the  infirmity  of  memory  of  Mr.  Spalding^"  4 
was  deprecated,  and  two  new  explanations  of  Whitman's 
journey  were  immediately  forthcoming,  which  have  been  ac 
cepted  by  writers  who  could  not,  like  Barrows  and  Nixon,  re 
peat  the  Walla  Walla  dinner  story  after  it  had  been  exploded. 

One  of  these  is  a  deft  combination  of  a  gross  exaggeration 

1  Circular  8,  5-6. 

2  History  of  Oregon,  288  ;  supra,  p.  32 ;  and  Eells,  Marcus  Whitman,  8. 

8  "  It  would  require  a  book  as  large  as  Gray's  to  correct  Gray's  mistakes." 
Bancroft's  History  of  the  Northwest  Coast,  II,  536.  w  It  has,  however,  three  faults 
—  lack  of  arrangement,  acrimonious  partisanship,  and  disregard  for  truth."  Ban 
croft,  History  of  Oregon,  I,  302.  "  His  book,  in  my  best  judgment,  is  a  bitter, 
prejudiced,  sectarian,  controversial  work  in  the  form  of  a  history."  Peter  H. 
Burnett,  Recollections  and  Opinions  of  an  Old  Pioneer,  N.  Y.,  1880,  222.  These 
last  two  judgments  I  regard  as  absolutely  just. 

It  will  not  escape  notice  that  Gray,  like  Spalding,  suppressed  all  reference  to 
the  missionary  troubles  in  1842  and  to  the  action  of  the  Board. 

4  Dr.  Laurie  in  The  Missionary  Herald,  Feb.  1885,  56-57. 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  65 

of  Dr.  Whitman's  plan  to  secure  additional  missionaries  and 
some  lay  helpers,  with  a  readjustment  of  the  Walla  Walla 
dinner  story.  Its  author  was  Perrin  B.  Whitman,  who  as  a 
lad  of  thirteen  returned  with  Dr.  Whitman  in  1843.  Thirty- 
nine  years  later  he  wrote  Myron  Eells:  "I  came  across  to 
Oregon  with  my  uncle,  Dr.  Marcus  Whitman,  in  1843.  I 
heard  him  say  repeatedly,  on  the  journey  and  after  we 
reached  his  mission,  Waiilatpu,  that  he  went  to  the  States 
in  the  winter  of  1842  and  1843  for  the  sole  purpose  of  bring 
ing  an  immigration  with  wagons  across  the  plains  to  Oregon. 
He  was  called  down  to  old  Fort  Walla  Walla  (now  Wallula), 
then  a  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  trading  post,  on  a  sick  call, 
about  the  last  days  of  September,  1842.  While  there,  and 
dining  with  the  trader  in  charge  of  the  fort,  Archibald 
McKinley,  Esq.,  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  express  from 
the  north,  came  in  and  reported  that  sixty  families  from  British 
possessions  would  be  at  Walla  Walla  as  early  the  next  sum 
mer  as  they  possibly  could  arrrive,  to  settle  probably  in  the 
Yakima  valley.  There  was  a  general  outburst  of  rejoicing 
over  the  news  by  the  Jesuit  priests,  oblates,  fort  employees, 
etc.,  who  were  at  that  time  there  all  shouting,  '  the  country 
is  ours;  the  Ashburton  treaty  has,  of  course,  been  signed.' 
The  doctor,  pushing  his  chair  back  from  the  table,  and 
excusing  himself,  said  he  would  go  home  (to  Waiilatpu) 
that  afternoon  (twenty-five  miles),  and  start  immediately  to 
the  States  overland.  He  then  and  there  told  trader  McKin 
ley  and  his  guests,  that  during  the  next  summer  he  would 
bring  overland  ten  American  immigrants  for  every  one  that 
would  come  from  Canada.  He  returned  that  afternoon,  as 
he  said  he  would,  and  with  but  little  preparation,  except  to 
have  good  horses,  started  on  the  perilous  journey  the  third 
day  of  October,  1842,  with  Hon.  A.  L.  Lovejoy  as  travelling 
companion."  l 

In  this  statement  it  may  be  noted  that  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company  colony  is  one  which  was  to  arrive  in  1843, 2  and 

1  Myron  Eells,  Marcus  Whitman,  12-13. 

2  To  judge  from  Spalding's  faux  pas,  it  would  be  safer  on  the  whole  to  base 

5 


66  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

Whitman  defiantly  announces  his  intention  to  bring  into  the 
country  "  ten  American  immigrants  for  every  one  that  would 
come  from  Canada."  If  the  reader  will  compare  this  story 
with  the  contemporary  letters  and  reports  above  quoted,  and 
then  with  Gray's  account,  he  will  not  easily  avoid  the  con 
clusion  that  before  writing  this  letter  Perrin  B.  Whitman 
refreshed  his  memory  by  consulting  Gray's  History. 

The  other  explanation  was  offered  by  Dr.  William  Geiger, 
who  came  out  to  Oregon  in  1839,  from  Angelica,  N.  Y.,  the 
home  at  that  time  of  Mrs.  Whitman's  father.  In  response 
to  an  inquiry  from  Myron  Eells  as  to  what  happened  at  the 
Walla  Walla  dinner,  Dr.  Geiger  wrote  under  date  of  October 
17,  1881:  "I  think  there  is  a  misconception  in  the  matter; 
Dr.  Whitman  had  got  information  of  Mr.  Lovejoy  and  others 
of  the  immigration  of  1842,  that  the  United  States  was  about 
to  exchange  this  country  for  the  Newfoundland  banks  fish 
eries,  or  a  share  in  them,  through  the  representations  of  the 
Hudson's  Bay  Company  that  the  whole  country  was  a  barren 
waste.  But  the  doctor,  knowing  the  value  of  this  country 
(Pacific  Coast)  went  to  Fort  Walla  Walla  to  find  out  about 
it  (the  proposed  trade),  and  was  informed  that  that  was  the 
expectation.  (As  witness  the  Red  River  emigration.)  He, 
Dr.  Whitman,  determined  to  check  the  transaction  if  pos 
sible."  1  June  5,  1883,  Dr.  Geiger  under  oath  repeated  this 
explanation  in  substance,  but  omitted  to  mention  the  expected 
equivalent  for  Oregon.2 

Whitman's  action  on  a  prospective  immigration.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  say 
that  there  was  no  such  Hudson's  Bay  Company  immigration  in  1843. 

1  Myron  Eells,  Marcus  Whitman,  M.  D.,  18.      Perrin  B.  Whitman,  at  the 
instance  of  Gray,  addressed  a  letter  "  To  the  Public,"  Oct.  11,  1880,  in  which  he 
said  "Dr.  Whitman's  trip  East,  in  the  winter  of  1842-43,  was  for  the   double 
purpose  of  bringing  an  immigration  across  the  plains,  and  also  to  prevent,  if 
possible,  the  trading  off  of  this  Northwest  Coast  to  the  British  Government." 
Ibid.,    13. 

2  Ibid.,  3.     Perrin  B.  Whitman  adopted  a  phase  of  this  explanation  in  pref 
erence  to  his  earlier  one  in  the  account  of  Marcus  Whitman  which  he  sent  Mr. 
C.  II.  Farnam.     There  he  wrote :  "  Dr.  Marcus  Whitman  having  informed  him 
self  of  a  pending  treaty  between  the  United  States  Government  and  Great  Britain 
which  would  deprive  our  government  of  this  glorious  west,  decided  to  proceed  to 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS    WHITMAN  67 

That  this  explanation  is  a  mere  afterthought,  to  supply  a 
political  crisis  to  account  for  Whitman's  journey  when  the 
Walla  Walla  dinner  story  collapsed  is  as  nearly  certain  as 
anything  of  the  kind  can  be. 

In  the  first  place,  the  immigration  of  1842  was  organized 
by  Dr.  Elijah-  White  with  the  approval  and  encouragement 
of  the  Administration  in  Washington,  from  which  he  received 
the  commission  of  sub-Indian  Agent,  with  the  assurance  that 
if  Dr.  Linn's  Oregon  bill  passed  Congress  he  would  receive 
an  appointment  as  Agent.1  Love  joy  joined  the  immigration 
from  western  Missouri,  and  would  derive  his  notions  of  the 
policy  of  the  government  in  regard  to  Oregon  from  Dr. 
White.  The  first  American  that  White  saw  after  he  crossed 
the  Blue  Mountains  was  Dr.  Whitman.  "The  visit  was 
very  agreeable  to  both,  as  he  had  much  to  tell  Dr.  White  of 
Oregon  affairs,  and  the  Dr.  him  of  his  two  years'  residence 
in  the  States."2  Dr.  White  then  went  on  to  the  Willamette 
Valley,  where  he  called  a  meeting  "for  the  purpose  of  com 
municating  certain  information  from  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  relative  to  this  country. "  3  The  drift  of  this 
communication  can  be  gathered  from  the  resolutions  drawn 
up  by  the  meeting.  The  most  significant  for  our  purpose  is 
the  first  one:  "That  we,  the  citizens  of  Willamette  valley, 
are  exceedingly  happy  in  the  consideration  that  the  govern 
ment  of  the  United  States  have  manifested  their  intentions 
through  their  agent,  Dr.  E.  White,  of  extending  their  juris 
diction  and  protection  over  this  country."4 

It  is  then  from  Mr.  Love  joy  and  others  of  Dr.  White's 
party,  as  Dr.  Geiger  solemnly  informs  us  after  forty  years, 
that  Dr.  Whitman  learned  "that  the  United  States  was 

Washington  at  once  and  stay  such  proceedings  if  possible."      C.  H.  Farnam, 
Descendants  of  John  Whitman  of  Wet/mouth,  Mass.,  New  Haven,  1889,  237. 

1  Letter  of  Ex-Secretary  of  War  J.  C.  Spencer  to  Dr.  White,  under  date  of 
July  29,  1846.     "  You  was,"  writes  Spencer,  "  to  raise  as  large  a  company  of  our 
citizens  as  possible,  to  proceed  with  you,  and  settle  in  Oregon."     Ten  Years  in 
Oregon.     Travels  and  Adventures  of  Dr.  E.   White  and  Lady,  etc.     Ithaca,  1850, 
322-325.     This  will  be  cited  henceforth  as  White's  Ten  Years  in  Oregon. 

2  White's  Ten  Years  in  Oregon,  166. 

8  Ibid.,  168.    The  meeting  was  held  Sept.  23,  not  June  23  as  printed. 
*  Ibid.,  169. 


68  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

about  to  exchange  this  country  for  the  Newfoundland  banks 
fisheries,  or  a  share  in  them." 1 

If  the  reader  will  compare  Dr.  Geiger's  conception  of  the 
political  crisis  with  Spalding's  (pp.  14,101),  he  will  see  that 
they  are  the  same.  If  he  searches  further  he  will  find  that 
Mr.  Spalding  was  the  first  man  who  ever  put  it  on  record 
that  the  United  States  were  going  to  exchange  Oregon  for 
the  cod  fisheries.  As  Perrin  B.  Whitman  readjusted  the 
Spalding  and  Gray  story  by  making  Dr.  Whitman  hear  of  a 
prospective  immigration  rather  than  of  one  just  arriving,  so 
Dr.  Geiger  readjusts  the  same  story  by  having  Whitman  in 
formed  by  Love  joy  of  what  Spalding  said  he  learned  after  he 
reached  Washington.  The  original  story  and  the  two  read 
justments  are  equally  at  variance  with  authenticated  history. 

There  was  in  1842  no  political  crisis  in  the  fate  of  Oregon 
for  Whitman  to  discover  in  Oregon,  nor  was  there  one  in 
Washington  for  him  to  be  informed  of  that  could  suggest 
the  necessity  of  a  journey.  Under  critical  examination  all 
urgent  political  reasons  for  Whitman's  journey  to  the  United 
States  disappear.  On  the  other  hand,  the  unexpected  arrival 
of  the  large  immigration  of  1842  of  one  hundred  and  twenty- 
five  persons,  the  news  of  the  policy  of  the  Government  as 
brought  by  Dr.  White,  and  the  probability  of  a  greatly  in 
creased  immigration  in  the  immediate  future  emphasized  the 
mission  crisis  and  demonstrated  to  Whitman's  mind  the  fatal 
shortsightedness  of  the  American  Board  in  discontinuing  the 
Waiilatpu  mission  at  a  time  when  its  services  would  be  more 
than  ever  needed  to  promote  the  spiritual  and  temporal  wel 
fare  of  the  whites  and  Indians  in  Oregon.2 

1  It  is  perhaps  superfluous  to  remark  that  no  contemporary  evidence  has  ever 
been  found  that  the  rumor  attributed  to  Lovejoy  was  ever  current  in  1842.      His 
two  letters  about  Whitman's  ride  give  no  clue.     The  account  of  the  immigration 
of  1842  in  White's  Ten  Years  in  Oregon,  and  in  Medorem  Crawford's  Journal 
reveal  no  anxiety  that  the  United  States  would  give  up  any  part  of  Oregon,  nor 
do  such  representative  newspapers  as  Niles's  Register  or  the  N.  Y.  Tribune,  in  dis 
cussing  Lord  Ashburton's  mission,  intimate  that  the  Oregon  boundary  was  likely  to 
be  taken  up.     See  the  issues  of  Jan.  29,  1842.     Lord  Ashburton  arrived  April  3, 
and  the  next  notice  in  Niles's  Register  is  Aug.  6.    The  Oregon  immigration  of  1842 
left  Independence,  Mo.,  May  16. 

2  See  infra,  pp.  90  and  106-109. 


THE  LEGEND  OF  MARCUS    WHITMAN  69 

We  have  now  reached  a  point  where  we  can  determine  the 
character  of  Gushing  Eells'  testimony,  upon  which  great 
reliance  is  placed  by  the  defenders  of  the  Spalding  narrative. 
The  support  of  the  story  by  Gushing  Eells  was  really  a  deter 
mining  factor  in  its  preservation,  for  it  secured  its  acceptance 
by  Secretary  Treat  of  the  American  Board  in  1866,  and  later 
brought  to  its  defence  a  most  efficient  champion  in  the 
person  of  his  son,  Myron  Eells.  Gushing  Eells'  evidence 
consists  of  the  letter  of  May  28,  1866,  printed  above,  on 
pp.  23-25,  and  of  an  affidavit  made  in  the  midst  of  the  Whit 
man  controversy  in  1883. 

The  affidavit  reads :  — 

"September,  1842,  a  letter  written  by  Dr.  Whitman,  ad 
dressed  to  Rev.  Messrs.  E.  Walker  and  Gushing  Eells  at  Tshi- 
makain,  reached  its  destination  and  was  received  by  the  persons 
to  whom  it  was  written.  By  the  contents  of  said  letter  a 
meeting  of  the  Oregon  mission  of  the  American  Board  of  Com 
missioners  for  Foreign  Missions  was  invited  to  be  held  at 
Waiilatpu.  The  object  of  said  meeting,  as  stated  in  the  letter 
named,  was  to  approve  of  a  purpose  formed  by  Dr.  Whitman, 
that  he  go  East  on  behalf  of  Oregon  as  related  to  the  United 
States.  In  the  judgment  of  Mr.  Walker  and  myself  that  object 
was  foreign  to  our  assigned  work. 

"  With  troubled  thoughts  we  anticipated  the  proposed  meet 
ing.  On  the  following  day,  Wednesday,  we  started,  and  on 
Saturday  afternoon  camped  on  the  Touchet  at  the  ford  near  the 
Mullan  bridge.  We  were  pleased  with  the  prospect  of  enjoying 
a  period  of  rest,  reflection,  and  prayer  —  needful  preparation  for 
the  antagonism  of  opposing  ideas.  We  never  moved  camp  on 
the  Lord's  Day.  On  Monday  morning  we  arrived  at  Waiilatpu 
and  met  the  two  resident  families  of  Messrs.  Whitman  and 
Gray.  Rev.  H.  Spaulding  was  there.  All  the  male  members 
of  the  mission  were  thus  together.  In  the  discussion  the  opin 
ion  of  Mr.  Walker  and  myself  remained  unchanged.  The  pur 
pose  of  Dr.  Whitman  was  fixed.  In  his  estimation  the  saving 
of  Oregon  to  the  United  States  was  of  paramount  importance, 
and  he  would  make  the  attempt  to  do  so,  even  if  he  had  to  with 
draw  from  the  mission  in  order  to  accomplish  his  purpose.  In 


70  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

reply  to  considerations  intended  to  hold  Dr.  Whitman  to  his 
assigned  work,  he  said :  '  I  am  not  expatriated  by  becoming  a 
missionary.' 

"  The  idea  of  his  withdrawal  could  not  be  entertained,  there 
fore  to  retain  him  in  the  mission,  a  vote  to  approve  of  his 
making  his  perilous  endeavor  prevailed.  He  had  a  cherished 
object  for  the  accomplishment  of  which  he  desired  consultation 
with  Eev.  David  Greene,  secretary  of  correspondence  with  the 
mission  at  Boston,  Mass.,  but  I  have  no  recollection  that  it  was 
named  at  the  meeting.  A  part  of  two  days  was  spent  in  con 
sultation.  Kecord  of  the  date  and  acts  of  the  meeting  was 
made.  The  book  containing  the  same  was  in  the  keeping  of 
the  Whitman  family.  At  the  time  of  the  massacre,  November 
29,  1847,  it  disappeared.  The  fifth  day  of  October  following 
was  designated  as  the  day  on  which  Dr.  Whitman  would  expect 
to  start  from  Waiilatpu.  Accordingly,  letters,  of  which  he  was 
to  be  the  bearer,  were  required  to  be  furnished  him  at  his 
station  therewith.  Mr.  Walker  and  myself  returned  to  Tshi- 
makain,  prepared  letters  and  forwarded  them  seasonably  to 
Waiilatpu.  By  the  return  of  the  courier  information  was  re 
ceived  that  Dr.  Whitman  started  on  the  3rd  of  October.  It  is 
possible  that  transpirings  at  old  Fort  Walla  Walla  hastened  his 
departure  two  days.  Soon  after  his  return  to  this  coast  Dr. 
Whitman  said  to  me  he  wished  he  could  return  East  imme 
diately,  as  he  believed  he  could  accomplish  more  than  he  had 
done,  as  I  understood  him  to  mean,  to  save  this  country  to  the 
United  States.  I  asked  him  why  he  could  not  go.  He  said 
'  I  cannot  go  without  seeing  Mrs.  Whitman.  She  was  then  in 
the  Williamette  valley.' 

"  I  solemnly  affirm  that  the  foregoing  statements  are  true  and 
correct,  according  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge  and  belief.  So 
help  me  God. 

(Signed)  "GUSHING  EELLS. 

"  Sworn  and  subscribed  to  before  me,  this  23d  day  of  August, 
1883.  . 

(Signed)  "L.  E.  KELLOGG, 

"Notary  Public,  Spokane  county,  Washington  Territory."  l 

1  Eells,  Marcus  Whitman,  9-10. 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  71 

In  the  first  case  we  have  Dr.  Eells'  personal  recollections 
after  twenty-three  years,  and  in  the  second  case  after  forty 
years,  of  an  event  about  which  we  want  precise  knowledge. 
The  defenders  of  the  Whitman  story  generally  take  the 
ground:  Here  is  the  personal  testimony  of  Gushing  Eells, 
who  was  on  the  ground  at  the  time,  and  who,  as  every  one 
knows,  was  an  honest  man.  You  cannot  have  better  evi 
dence  than  this.  It  is  decisive.1 

This  contention  requires  us  to  accept  Gushing  Eells'  mem 
ory  as  an  instrument  of  equal  precision  with  a  contemporary 
written  record,  and  such,  at  bottom,  has  been  the  demand 
made  by  the  defence  in  the  Whitman  question  for  twenty 
years.  It  is  this  that  has  prolonged  the  discussion.  The 
two  sides  cannot  get  on  common  ground,  —  the  common 
ground  of  the  accepted  principles  of  modern  historical  criti 
cism.2  Before  Gushing  Eells'  statements  can  be  accepted  as 
history  the  comparative  accuracy  of  his  memory  as  a  record 
must  be  ascertained.  The  gauge  or  criterion  in  this  case 
must  be  Elkanah  Walker's  letter  of  Oct.  3,  1842,  which 
Gushing  Eells  endorsed  as  a  correct  record  (pp.  57-58), 
Elkanah  Walker's  diary,  and  Mrs.  Whitman's  letters  (pp. 
56-59).  These  contemporary  records  agree,  and  Gushing  Eells 
agreed  with  them  at  the  time.  The  degree  of  his  divergence 
from  those  contemporary  records  is  the  measure  of  the  diver 
gence  of  his  affidavit  from  the  true  history  of  the  occurrence, 
whether  through  fallibility  of  memory,  human  enough  in  any 
case,  through  the  subtle  influence  of  suggestion,  or  for  less 
pardonable  reasons. 

If  we  compare  his  two  statements  we  find  that  the  affidavit 

1  Cf.  Craighead,  Story  of  Marcus  Whitman,  68. 

2  This  will  be  evident  to  any  one  who  is  sufficiently  interested  in  the  question 
to  read  some  of  the  criticisms  on  my  article  in  the  American  Historical  Review, 
Jan.  1901,  in  particular  those  by  Prof.  Parker,  Dr.  Mowry,  and  President  Penrose 
(see  p.  54).     Inasmuch  as  it  is  not  practicable  to  demonstrate  the  validity  of  a 
critical  process  every  time  it  is  employed,  a  general  reference  may  be  given  to  the 
discussion  in  Langlois  and  Seignobos,  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  History,  pp.  62-86, 
and  especially  to  the  valuable  paper  of  the  late  Edward  L.  Pierce  on  Recollections 
as  a  Source  of  History,  in  his  Addresses  and  Papers,  375-397. 


72  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

deals  with  the  occasion  of  Whitman's  journey  which  was 
most  at  issue  in  1883,  and  the  letter  of  1866,  with  the 
results  of  the  journey. 

According  to  the  affidavit,  the  letter  from  Dr.  Whitman 
calling  a  meeting  of  the  mission  "  was  to  approve  of  a  pur 
pose  formed  by  Dr.  Whitman,  that  he  go  East  on  behalf  of 
Oregon  as  related  to  the  United  States,"  but  according  to 
Walker's  diary 1  and  letter  this  purpose  was  not  revealed 
until  the  meeting  was  over2  (see  pp.  56-57).  Again  Gushing 
Eells  says  of  Whitman,  "  He  had  a  cherished  object,  for  the 
accomplishment  of  which  he  desired  consultation  with  Rev. 
David  Greene,  secretary  of  correspondence  with  the  mission 
at  Boston,  Mass.,  but  I  have  no  recollection  that  it  was 
named  at  the  meeting."  But  the  record  of  the  meeting  ap 
proving  of  the  project  was  signed  by  Gushing  Eells  (p.  56). 

In  his  letter  of  1866  Mr.  Eells  wrote :  "  According  to  the 
understanding  of  the  members  of  the  mission,  the  single 
object  of  Dr.  Whitman,  in  attempting  to  cross  the  continent 
in  the  winter  of  1842-43,  amid  mighty  peril  and  suffering 
was  to  make  a  desperate  effort  to  save  this  country  to  the 
United  States"  (p.  23).  That  this  was  not  "the  single 
object "  is  proved  by  the  contemporary  letters  beyond  the 
shadow  of  a  doubt,  nor  do  the  contemporary  sources  reveal 
any  consciousness  that  the  future  of  Oregon  was  at  stake, 
except  in  so  far  as  it  would  be  affected  by  the  discontinuance 
of  the  southern  stations  of  the  American  Board  Missions. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  neither  in  his  earlier  letter  or  later 
affidavit  did  Gushing  Eells  lend  any  support  to  the  Spalding 
and  Gray  story  of  the  Walla  Walla  dinner  or  to  the  read- 

1  The  statement  in  Mr.  Walker's  diary,  under  date  of  September  28,  1842,  is: 
"  At  breakfast  the  Dr.  let  out  what  was  his  plan  in  view  of  the  state  of  things. 
We  persuaded  them  to  get  together  and  talk  matters  over.    I  think  they  felt  some 
better  afterwards.   Then  the  question  was  submitted  to  us  of  the  Dr.'s  going  home 
which  we  felt  that  it  was  one  of  too  much  importance  to  be  decided  in  a  moment, 
but  finally  came  to  the  conclusion  if  he  could  put  things  at  that  station  in  such  a 
state  we  could  consent  to  his  going,  and  with  that  left  them  and  made  a  start  for 
home." 

2  It  will  be  noticed  that  according  to  Spalding's  narrative  the  occasion  or  sug 
gestion  of  the  journey  did  not  arise  until  the  meeting  was  in  session  (p.  10). 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  73 

justments  of  that  story  devised  by  Dr.  Geiger  and  Perrin  B. 
Whitman.  The  only  conclusion  is  that  he  knew  nothing  of 
any  one  of  them,  and  that  they  could  not  have  been  true 
without  his  having  heard  of  it. 

That  Whitman's  journey  was  of  service  to  Oregon  Mr. 
Eells  sincerely  believed,  that  Whitman  made  it  because  he 
believed  the  preservation  and  reinforcement  of  the  Southern 
Mission  indispensable  to  the  welfare  of  Oregon  he  knew, 
that  Whitman  may  have  used  the  words  "  Save  Oregon  "  is 
altogether  probable,  that  Whitman  later  believed  his  services 
to  the  immigration  of  1843  played  no  small  part  in  promot 
ing  the  occupation  of  Oregon  he  clearly  recollected.  In 
the  lapse  of  years  these  constituent  elements  become  merged, 
and  in  1866  his  memory  reproduces  a  composite  which  is 
not  an  accurate  record.  This  puts  a  reasonable  and  favor 
able  construction  on  the  discrepancies  between  Mr.  Eells' 
statements  and  the  contemporary  records.  Unfortunately, 
however,  for  Mr.  Eells'  credit  as  an  independent  witness  it 
is  only  too  clear  that  while  he  did  not  and,  no  doubt,  could 
not  bear  witness  to  Spalding's  Walla  Walla  dinner  story,  he 
did  reinforce  his  memory  in  regard  to  things  about  which 
he  had  no  personal  knowledge  by  consulting  the  Spalding 
narrative.  The  comparison  of  extracts  in  parallel  columns 
will  prove  this. 

Spalding's  article  in  The  Eells'  letter  of  May  28, 
Pacific,  Nov.  9,  1865:—  1866:  — 

"  On  reaching  the  settlements  "On  reaching  Washington, 
Dr.  Whitman  found  that  many  he  learned  that  representations 
now  old  Oregonians  .  .  .  had  had  been  made  there  corre- 
abandoned  the  idea  because  of  spending  to  those  which  had 
representations  from  Washing-  been  often  repeated  on  this 
ton  that  every  attempt  to  take  coast.  Oregon,  it  was  said, 
wagons  and  ox  teams  through  .  .  .  was  difficult  of  access, 
the  Rocky  Mountains  and  Blue  A  wagon  road  thither  was  an 
Mountains  to  the  Columbia  had  impossibility.  By  such  state- 
failed.  The  representations  ments  Governor  Simpson  (the 
purported  to  come  from  Secre-  territorial  Governor  of  the 


74 


ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL  CRITICISM 


Hudson's  Bay  Company)  had 
well-nigh  succeeded  in  accom 
plishing  his  object  of  purchas 
ing  this  country,  not  for  a  mess 
of  pottage,  but  a  cod-fishery. 
Dr.  Whitman  was  barely  able 
to  obtain  from  President  Tyler 
the  promise  that  negotiations 
should  be  suspended."  1 


tary  Webster,  but  really  from 
Governor  Simpson.  .  .  .  [Whit 
man  goes  to  Washington  and 
presses  upon  Webster  the  value 
of  Oregon.]  Mr.  Webster  .  .  . 
awarded  sincerity  to  the  mis 
sionary,  but  could  not  admit 
for  a  moment  that  the  short 
residence  of  six  years  could 
give  the  Doctor  the  knowledge 
of  the  country  possessed  by 
Governor  Simpson,  who  had 
almost  grown  up  in  the  coun 
try,  and  had  travelled  every 
part  of  it,  and  represents  it  as 
an  unbroken  waste  of  sand 
deserts  and  impassable  moun 
tains,  fit  only  for  the  beaver, 
the  gray  bear  and  the  savage. 
Besides  he  had  about  traded  it 
off  with  Governor  Simpson,  to 
go  into  the  Ashburton  treaty 
for  a  cod-fishery  on  Newfound 
land.  [Whitman  then  goes  to 
President  Tyler.]  .  .  .  The  great 
desire  of  the  doctor's  American 
soul,  Christian  withal,  that  is, 
the  pledge  of  the  President 
that  the  swapping  of  Oregon 
with  England  for  a  cod-fishery 
should  stop  for  the  present, 
was  attained." l 


As  these  negotiations  of  Governor  Simpson  in  Washington 
and  Whitman's  success  in  frustrating  them  are  the  very 
heart  and  life  of  the  legend  of  Marcus  Whitman,2  without 
which  it  would  never  have  come  to  anything,  and  as  they 


1  See  supra,  pp.  12-14  and  pp.  23-24. 

2  See  infra,  ^.  101.     Spalding's  second  statement. 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  75 

are  a  pure  invention,  one  of  three  conclusions  is  forced  upon 
us.  Either  this  story  was  invented  by  Marcus  Whitman 
himself  and  reported  years  afterward  by  Spalding  and  Eells, 
or  it  was  invented  in  common  by  Spalding  and  Eells,  or 
Spalding  invented  it  and  Eells  copied  it  from  him.  The 
last  is,  I  believe,  the  true  solution.  But  if  this  is  accepted 
Gushing  Eells  can  no  longer  be  brought  forward  as  an  inde 
pendent  witness  in  confirmation  of  Spalding's  story,  for  he 
draws  from  that  story  the  material  with  which  he  supports  it! 

Having  reviewed  the  evidence  upon  which  the  legendary 
account  of  the  causes  of  Dr.  Whitman's  journey  is  based, 
I  will  now  proceed  to  examine  the  tradition  of  what  he 
achieved  in  Washington  and  to  offer  an  explanation  of  the 
origin  of  its  unhistorical  features.  That  Dr.  Whitman  con 
templated  going  to  Washington  during  his  absence  in  the 
east  is  clear  from  the  statements  in  the  letters  of  Mrs. 
Whitman1  and  Dr.  White,2  and  it  is  not  improbable  that  his 
intention  was  strengthened,  if  not  suggested,  by  his  confer 
ence  with  Dr.  White.3 

What  purpose  Dr.  Whitman  had  in  going  to  Washington 
is  to  be  learned  from  the  letters  of  his  companion,  A.  Law 
rence  Lovejoy,  supplemented  by  his  own  letter  to  the  Secre 
tary  of  War  and  the  draft  of  a  bill  which  he  submitted.  It 
is  true  that  Lovejoy's  letter  was  not  written  until  1876,  but 

1  See  letter  of  Sept.  30, 1842,  quoted  above,  p.  59,  in  which  Mrs.  Whitman  says 
that  Mr.  Lovejoy  "  expects  to  accompany  him  (her  husband)  all  the  way  to  Bos 
ton,  .  .  .  and  perhaps  to  Washington." 

2  Dr.  White  wrote  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs,  April  1,  1843,  that 
the  country  of  the  Cayuse  Indians  "  is  well-watered,  gently  undulating,  extremely 
healthy,  and  admirably  adapted  to  grazing,  as  Dr.  Whitman  may  have  informed 
you,  who  resides  in  their  midst."     White's  Ten  Years  in  Oregon,  174;  also  in 
Gray,  219. 

3  See  p.  67.     Whatever  else  they  talked  about,  we  may  be  sure  that  Whitman 
impressed  upon  Dr.  White,  who,  as  a  former  missionary,  would  sympathize  with 
him,  the  imperative  need  of  more  help,  now  that  immigration  had  begun,  for  Dr. 
White  wrote  the  Indian  Commissioner  in  the  letter  just  quoted,  "  that  the  mis 
sionaries  .  .  .  are  too  few  in  number  at  their  respective  stations,  and  in  too  defense 
less  a  state  for  their  own  safety.  .  .  .  You  will  see  its  bearings  upon  this  infant  col 
ony,  and  doubtless  give  such  information  or  instructions  to  the  American  board 
of  commissioners  or  myself  as  will  cause  a  correction  of  this  evil."     Ibid.,  193. 


76  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

the  fact  that,  although  it  was  drawn  from  him  in  the  hope  of 
confirming  the  Spalding  story,  it  is  an  entirely  independent 
narrative,  allows  us  to  use  it  as  a  genuine  recollection  for 
what  it  is  worth.  Mr.  Lovejoy  wrote  to  Dr.  Atkinson 
under  date  of  Feb.  14,  1876 :  "  I  crossed  the  plains  in  com 
pany  with  Dr.  White  and  others,  and  arrived  at  Waiilatpu 
the  last  of  September,  1842.  My  party  camped  some  two 
miles  below  Dr.  Whitman's  place. 

"The  day  after  our  arrival  Dr.  Whitman  called  at  our 
camp  and  asked  me  to  accompany  him  to  his  house,  as  he 
wished  me  to  draw  up  a  memorial  to  Congress  to  prohibit 
the  sale  of  ardent  spirits  in  this  country.1  The  Doctor  was 
alive  to  the  interests  of  this  coast,  and  manifested  a  very 
warm  desire  to  have  it  properly  represented  at  Washington ; 
and  after  numerous  conversations  with  the  Doctor  touching 
the  future  prosperity  of  Oregon,  he  asked  me  one  day,  in 
a  very  anxious  manner,  if  I  thought  it  would  be  possible 
for  him  to  cross  the  mountains  at  that  time  of  the  year.  I 
told  him  I  thought  he  could.  He  next  asked:  '  Will  you 
accompany  me  ? '  After  a  little  reflexion,  I  told  him  I 
would."2 

Lovejoy  accompanied  Whitman  as  far  as  Bent's  Fort 
(Southeastern  Colorado)  where  he  stayed  until  spring.  He 
joined  the  immigration  of  1843  in  July  near  Fort  Laramie, 
with  whom  Whitman  was  travelling.  His  letter  continues :  — 

"  The  Doctor  often  expressed  himself  to  me  about  the  re 
mainder  of  his  journey,  and  the  manner  in  which  he  was 
received  at  Washington  and  by  the  Board  of  Missions  at 
Boston.  The  Doctor  had  several  interviews  with  President 
Tyler,  Secretary  Webster,  and  many  members  of  Congress, 
touching  the  interests  of  Oregon.  He  urged  the  immediate 
termination  of  the  treaty  with  Great  Britain  relative  to  this 
country,  and  the  extension  of  the  laws  of  the  United  States, 

*  Lovejoy  was  a  lawyer. 

2  Nixon,  How  Marcus  Whitman  Saved  Oregon,  306.  Lovejoy's  letter  occu 
pies  pp.  305-312.  Lovejoy's  letter  to  Gray  of  Nov.  6,  1869,  is  similar  in  tenor  as 
a  whole,  but  does  not  mention  all  the  facts  quoted  above.  Gray,  324-327.  Cf. 
the  report  of  conversations  with  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Lovejoy  in  Note  F,  pp.  106-109. 


THE  LEGEND  OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  11 

and  to  provide  liberal  inducements  to  emigrants  to  come  to 
this  coast."  l 

Whether  this  part  of  Lovejoy's  letter  is  equally  free  from 
the  influence  of  the  Spalding  narrative  might  be  questioned, 
but  I  believe  it  can  be  taken  as  a  genuine  recollection,  al 
though  possibly  with  some  exaggeration  of  the  number  of 
interviews  with  Tyler  and  Webster,  for  it  shows  no  trace 
of  the  Spalding  legend  of  Whitman's  having  arrived  in  the 
nick  of  time  to  save  Oregon  from  being  "traded  off  for  a 
cod  fishery."  Such  as  it  is,  this  is  the  only  account  of  what 
Whitman  urged  upon  the  government  that  is  not  interwoven 
with  fictitious  elements  and  based  on  a  misconception  of  the 
situation.  A  further  light,  however,  on  the  nature  of  Whit 
man's  interviews  with  the  officials  is  afforded  by  his  letter  to 
the  Secretary  of  War,  with  the  accompanying  draft  of  a  bill 
dispatched  after  his  return.  That  he  was  asked  to  present 
this  proposition  which  he  made  to  the  Secretary  of  War  in 
the  form  of  a  bill,  appears  in  the  opening  words :  "  In  com 
pliance  with  the  request  you  did  me  the  honor  to  make  last 
winter  while  in  Washington,  I  herewith  transmit  to  you  the 
synopsis  of  a  bill."2  The  specific  proposals  of  this  bill  were 
designed  to  facilitate  immigration  to  Oregon  by  rendering 
the  journey  safer  from  Indians'  attack,  less  expensive,  and 
more  comfortable  to  the  immigrants.  The  most  serious  diffi 
culties  in  the  transit  were  the  illness  often  caused  by  lack 
of  a  variety  of  diet,  the  scarcity  of  fodder  and  water,  the 
dangers  in  fording  the  streams,  the  liability  of  the  wagon 
wheels  to  fall  to  pieces  in  the  long  passage  of  the  elevated 
arid  region  and  the  exposure  to  Indian  depredations.  To 
meet  these  needs  Whitman  proposed  the  establishment  of 
ferries  at  the  important  river  crossings  and  of  government 

1  Gray's  Oregon,   326.     I  use  the  earlier  letter  this  time,  the  only  essential 
difference  between  the  two  being  a  parenthetical  statement  that  Congress  was  in 
session  when  Whitman  arrived,  which  is  a  mistake  and  may  be  an  explanatory 
afterthought.     See  Note  F  for  later  expressions  from  Lovejoy. 

2  See  Letter  and  Bill  in  Trans. of  the  Oregon  Pioneer  Assoc.1891,  69  ff.,  and  in 
Nixon,  How  Marcus  Whitman  Saved  Oregon,  315ff.     In  1847  Whitman  again 
urged  the  plan  with  some  further  developments.    Ibid.,  332-39. 


78  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

farming  stations  every  two  hundred  miles,  with  blacksmith, 
gunsmith,  and  carpenter's  shops,  under  the  charge  of  govern 
ment  agents  empowered  to  act  as  notaries  and  justices.  Such 
stations  would  be  self-supporting  from  the  sale  of  produce 
and  the  services  rendered  to  the  immigrants.  Whatever  the 
merits  of  this  plan,  which  was  in  fact  an  alternative  for  the 
establishment  of  military  posts  as  urged  by  the  Secretary  of 
War,1  it  was  not  adopted  and  had  no  influence  on  legisla 
tion.2  Moreover,  there  was  nothing  novel  in  the  general 
Oregon  policy  which  Lovejoy  represents  Whitman  as  press 
ing  upon  the  government.  It  had  been  urged  for  years  by 
prominent  senators  and  representatives,  and  the  government 
was  already  moving  in  that  direction.  Four  years  earlier, 
for  example,  Jason  Lee,  one  of  the  pioneer  Methodist  mis 
sionaries,  presented  a  memorial  signed  by  nearly  all  the 
settlers  in  the  Willamette  valley  "  to  Congress,  praying  that 
body  to  extend  the  United  States  government  over  the  terri 
tory,"  and  his  letter  and  the  memorial  were  included  in  Caleb 
Cushing's  report  on  Oregon,  of  which  10,000  extra  copies 
were  printed.3  Over  a  month  before  Whitman  arrived  in 
Washington  Senator  Linn's  Bill  passed  the  Senate  by  a  vote 
of  24  to  22,  providing  for  the  extension  of  the  laws  of  the 
United  States  over  the  whole  of  the  Oregon  territory,  the 
erection  of  courts  and  the  granting  of  lands  to  settlers.4  So 
far  from  there  being  ajiy  danger  that  Oregon  would  be  lost 
to  the  United  States 5  the  real  danger  was  that  the  govern- 

1  In  his  report  transmitted  with  the  President's  Message  in  Dec.  1841,  Secre 
tary  Spencer  declared  it  indispensable  that  a  chain  of  posts  should  be  established 
extending  from  Council  Bluffs  to  the  mouth  of  the  Columbia,  so  as  to  ...  main 
tain  a  communication  with  the  territories  belonging  to  us  on  the  Pacific."     Exec. 
Docs.,  27th  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  1, 61.     This  was  repeated  in  Dec.  1842  with  more  ur 
gency.     Exec.  Docs.,  27th  Cong.,  3rd  Sess.,  1, 186.    Pres.  Tyler  gave  the  proposal 
a  favorable  mention  in  his  Message,     Ibid.,  9. 

2  Yet  Dr.  Craighead  had  the  hardihood  to  write  of  Whitman  in  Washington  : 
"  His  information  was  needed  and  was  welcomed,  and  his  plan  to  save  Oregon 
was  adopted."    Story  of  Marcus  Whitman,  188. 

8  House  Report,  No.  101,  25th  Cong.,  3d  Sess. 

*  The  bill  and  the  debates  are  conveniently  summarized    by  Greenhow, 
Oregon,  377-388. 

5  In  his  Report,  transmitted  to  Congress  in  Dec.  1842,  the  Secretary  of  War 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS    WHITMAN  79 

ment  would  be  pushed  by  the  Oregon  advocates  in  the  West 
into  an  aggressive  policy  which  might  result  in  war  with 
England.1  The  appearance  of  a  solitary  missionary  in  Wash 
ington  advocating  what  a  majority  of  the  Senate  had  already 
voted,  and  what  State  legislatures  were  demanding  in  reso 
lutions2  was  a  mere  drop  in  the  bucket.  That  Whitman 
influenced  American  diplomacy  in  any  way  at  Washington  is 
not  only  destitute  of  all  evidence  but  is  intrinsically  improb 
able.  The  belief  that  he  did  so  originated  with  Spalding, 
and  the  ever-present  stamp  of  his  invention  in  all  the  vary 
ing  narratives  is  the  reference  to  "  trading  off  Oregon  for  a 
cod-fishery."  That  Whitman's  visit  to  Washington  was  an 
event  without  political  influence  or  historical  significance  is 
clear  from  the  fact  that  no  contemporary  mention  of  his  pres 
ence  there  has  ever  been  found.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Globe 
or  the  National  Intelligencer  among  Washington  papers,  or  in 
Niles's  Register ',  although  its  pages  for  1843  contain  many 

urged  his  proposed  military  stations  "  if  we  intend  to  maintain  our  right  to  the 
territories  on  the  Pacific  belonging  to  us,  which,  it  is  supposed,  does  not  admit  of 
question."  Exec.  Docs.,  27th  Cong.,  3d  Sess.,  I,  186.  Cf.  Dr.  White's  Commis 
sion,  67,  supra.  Du  Flot  de  Mofras  commented  as  follows  on  the  public  doc 
uments  relating  to  Oregon  published  before  1843  :  "  Les  documents  officiels  que 
nous  avons  cites  prouvent  assez  1'importance  que  le  cabinet  de  Washington 
attache  a  la  possession  de  ces  vastes  contrees."  Explorations  du  Territoire  de 
I* Oregon,  etc.,  pendant  les  Ann&s  1840,  1841,  et  1842,  Paris,  1844,  II,  242. 

How  the  situation  impressed  another  foreign  writer  will  appear  from  this 
contemporary  remark :  "  Quoiqu'il  arrive,  les  Etats-Unis  ne  laisseront  pas  les 
Anglais  s'etablir  impunement  sur  le  territoire  de  1'Oregon."  Les  Territoires  de 
I' Oregon,  par  P.  Grimblot,  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  Mai  15,  1843,  538. 

1  Lord  Palmerston  said  in  the  House  of  Commons,  March  21,  "if  that  bill 
[t.  e.,  the  Linn  Bill]  passed  into  a  law,  an  event  which  he  conceived  to  be  impos 
sible,  it  would  amount  to  a  declaration  of  war."    London  Times,  March  22,  1843, 
p.  3,  col.  4. 

2  "  There  were  militant  resolutions  of  the  Legislatures  of  Illinois  and  of  Mis- 
itouri,  relating  to  the  Territory  of  Oregon  !  "    J.  Q.  Adams's  memorandum  of  a 
meeting  of  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Feb.  25,  1843.     Diary,  XI,  327. 
Feb.  9,  Kepresentative  Reynolds,  chairman  of  a  select  committee  on  Oregon,  re 
ported  a  bill  for  the  immediate  occupation  of  the  territory.     His  report  asserted 
the  right  to  all  the  territory  up  to  54°  40'  and  the  expediency  of  immediate  occu 
pation.    Reports  of  Committees,  27th  Cong.,  3rd  Sess.,  Vol.  II,  Rep.  No.  1 57.    The 
report  is  summarized  in  Niles's  Register,  XLIII,  397 ;  see  also  Adams's  Diary,  XI, 
314. 


80  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

insignificant  items  of  Oregon  news,  or  in  the  Washington 
correspondence  of  the  Tribune  or  the  Journal  of  Commerce. 
Curtis 's  Webster  and  Webster's  Private  Correspondence  are 
alike  silent.  Interested  as  John  Quincy  Adams  was  in  all 
diplomatic  matters,  Chairman  of  the  House  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations,  watchful  and  suspicious  of  the  admin 
istration,  his  voluminous  Diary  knows  nothing  of  Marcus 
Whitman.  Equally  devoid  of  light  are  Benton's  Thirty 
Years'  View,  although  Benton  was  a  champion  of  Oregon, 
and  Greenhow's  History  of  Oregon,  although  Greenhow  was 
a  translator  in  the  State  Department  and  an  indefatigable  col 
lector  of  information  about  Oregon.1  The  Life  and  Speeches 
of  Senator  Linn,  of  Missouri,  who  was  the  most  advanced 
leader  of  the  Oregon  party,  make  no  reference  to  Whitman. 
Tyler's  Tyler  lacks  any  contemporary  reference  to  Whit 
man's  presence  in  Washington,  and  if  the  author  had  found 
any  he  would  have  given  it  because  he  makes  some  conjec 
tures  as  to  the  origin  of  the  notion  that  Whitman  exerted 
any  influence  on  the  diplomacy  of  that  year.2  Had  Whitman 

1  Greenhow's  preface  is  dated  February,  1844.     He  devotes  twenty-five  pages 
to  the  Oregon  Question  in  1843  and  half  a  page  to  the  Emigration  of  that  year, 
p.  391.     It  is  possible  that  the  following  note  on  p.  396  may  refer  to  Whitman. 
"  A  worthy  missionary,  now  established  on  the  Columbia,  while  acknowledging, 
in  conversation  with  the  author,  the  many  acts  of  kindness  received  by  him  from 
the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  agents,  at  the  same  time  declared  —  that  he  would 
not  buy  a  skin  to  make  a  cap,  without  their  consent." 

2  L.  G.  Tyler's  Letiers  and  Times  of  the  Tylers,  II,  439.     In  the  appendix 
pp.  692-699  is  a  letter  from  Dr.  Silas  Reed  under  date  of  April  8,  1885,  which 
twice  makes  mention  of  Whitman's  visit  to  Washington,  but  says  nothing  further 
than  that  he  "  furnished  valuable  data  about  Oregon  and  the  practicability  of  a 
wagon  route  thereto  across  the  mountains,"  p.  697. 

That  Whitman  did  press  this  point  about  the  practicability  of  a  wagon  route 
is  rendered  probable  by  the  tone  of  a  sentence  in  his  letter  to  the  Secretary  of 
War  in  regard  to  the  immigration  of  1843  :  "  they  have  practically  demonstrated 
that  wagons  drawn  by  horses  or  oxen  can  cross  the  Rocky  Mountains  to  the 
Columbia  River,  contrary  to  all  the  sinister  assertions  of  all  those  who  pretended 
it  to  be  impossible."  (Nixon,  316-17).  Yet  too  much  stress  cannot  be  laid  on  Dr. 
Reed's  testimony,  as  he  was  an  old  man  in  1885  and  made  several  mistakes  in  his 
letter,  of  which  a  significant  one  is  the  apparent  confusion  between  Dr.  White  and 
Dr.  Whitman.  On  p.  696,  he  says,  writing  of  the  spring  of  1842  :  "  From  Dr. 
Whitman,  a  missionary  to  Oregon  much  useful  information  for  emigrants  and  the 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  81 

exerted  even  a  small  part  of  the  influence  attributed  to  him 
this  universal  silence  would  be  inexplicable.  This  complete 
absence  of  contemporary  references  in  print  to  Whitman's 
presence  in  Washington  has  naturally  led  advocates  of  the 
story  to  push  their  investigations  among  the  manuscript  rec 
ords  and  to  make  inquiries  of  old  officials,  but  the  results  have 
been  equally  disappointing.1 

Senators  who  had  charge  of  the  bill  was  also  obtained  at  that  time."  This  must 
refer  to  Dr.  White  who  was  in  Washington  at  this  time  and  who  had  been  a  mis 
sionary  to  Oregon.  Whitman  did  not  arrive  till  after  the  bill  passed  the  Senate. 
On  p.  697,  however,  Dr.  Reed  makes  Whitman's  information  in  1843  contribute 
to  the  passage  of  the  bill.  On  other  points  in  this  letter  c/  Mr.  Tyler's  remarks, 
p.  699.  In  recent  years  John  Tyler,  Jr.,  President  Tyler's  private  secretary,  has 
said  that  he  remembered  Whitman's  visit  to  Washington,  that  he  was  "  full  of  his 
project  to  carry  emigrants  to  Oregon,  that  he  waited  on  the  President  and  received 
from  him  the  heartiest  concurrence  in  his  plans."  Mowry's  Marcus  Whitman, 
172-73.  The  latter  part  of  the  letter  of  L.  G.  Tyler  to  Dr.  Mowry  refers  to 
President  Tyler,  not  to  Whitman.  It  is  probable  that  after  forty  years  John 
Tyler,  Jr.'s,  recollection  of  Whitman  was  more  or  less  affected  by  Barrows' 
narrative,  enough  at  least  to  change  Whitman's  plan  to  facilitate  and  pro 
tect  emigration  into  a  plan  to  "carry  emigrants."  It  is  also  nearly  certain 
that  in  this  lapse  of  years  the  dim  figures  of  Dr.  White  and  Dr.  Whitman 
had  coalesced  in  the  memory  of  John  Tyler,  Jr.  Cf.  pp.  96-7. 

In  the  Atlantic  Monthly  for  Oct.,  1880,  in  an  art.  entitled  "  Reminiscences  of 
Washington  "  there  is  what  appears  to  be  an  independent  recollection  of  Whit 
man's  visit  to  Washington,  but  it  bears  the  familiar  marks  of  Spald ing's  invention. 
It  was  written  by  Ben.  Perley  Poore.  All  that  needs  to  be  said  is  that  Poore  spent 
the  years  1841-1848  in  Europe  and  the  Orient ! 

1  Nothing  has  ever  been  found  that  has  been  made  public  except  the  two  let 
ters  and  the  synopsis  of  the  bill  in  the  War  Department  records,  printed  in  Nixon, 
315-39.  Mrs.  Victor,  writing  in  the  San  Francisco  Call,  July  28,  1895,  declares 
that  when  Spalding  came  east  in  1870  with  the  materials  which  make  up  Execu 
tive  Document  37,  he  "presented  the  Whitman  story,  as  published  in  this  docu 
ment,  to  the  editor  of  the  New  York  Evangelist,  Dr.  J.  G.  Craighead,  with  the 
request  that  he  should  do  all  that  he  could  to  maintain  Dr.  Whitman's  claim  to 
be  considered  the  saviour  of  Oregon.  This  the  gentleman  promised,  and  afterward 
went  to  Washington,  where  he  spent  two  months  in  looking  for  evidence  that  this 
claim  had  any  foundation.  Failing  in  this,  he  wrote  to  Hon.  Elwood  Evans  of 
Olympia,  now  of  Tacoma,  telling  him  that  there  was  nothing  discovered  to  cor 
roborate  the  statement  of  Gray  and  Spalding,  and  asking  him  for  light.  A  copy 
of  this  letter  is  among  the  papers  in  my  possession."  Again  in  1883,  Dr.  Craig- 
head  wrote  Myron  Eells  :  "  What  you  say  about  negotiations  between  influential 
persons  is  laughed  at  by  the  State  Department  as  not  possible  and  absurd  on  the 
very  face  of  it.  Mr.  Hunter,  then  in  the  State  Department  and  for  nearly  a 

6 


82  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

In  the  legendary  accounts  of  Whitman's  visit  to  Washing 
ton  and  his  interviews  with  Webster  and  Tyler  the  essential 
features  are  his  arrival  just  in  time  to  frustrate  the  effort 
of  Sir  George  Simpson,  the  Governor  of  the  Hudson's  Bay 
Company,  to  secure  the  cession  of  Oregon  in  exchange  for 
the  cod-fisheries,1  and  it  was  upon  this  achievement  that  the 
claim  that  he  saved  Oregon  to  the  United  States  was  origi 
nally  based.2  The  incident  is  purely  imaginary,  and  wher 
ever  it  recurs  it  is  the  stamp  or  hall-mark,  so  to  speak,  of 
Spalding's  invention.3  The  fisheries  were  not  the  subject  of 
negotiation  in  1842,  nor  were  they  proposed  for  the  expected 
negotiation  of  1843. 4  Consequently  Webster  could  not  have 
told  Whitman  what  Spalding  attributes  to  him.  It  is  in  the 
highest  degree  improbable  that  either  Tyler  or  Webster  told 

generation  chief  clerk,  takes  no  stock  whatever  in  the  big  claim  for  Dr.Whitman." 
Eells'  Marcus  Whitman,  22. 

1  See  Spalding's  narrative,  supra,  p.  14,  and  his  other  statement  that  Whitman 
"  reached  the  City  of  Washington  not  an  hour  too  soon,  confronting  the  British 
agents  Ashburton,  Fox,  and  Simpson,  who,  there  is  evidence  to  show,  in  a  short 
time  would  have  consummated  their  plans,  and  secured  a  part,  if  not  all,  of  our 
territory  west  of  the  mountains  to  Great  Britain." 

2  See  the  whole  passage,  infra,  p.  101.     Lord  Ashburton  left  the  United  States 
early  in  Dec.,  1842. 

3  For  the  recurrence  of  this  note,  see  Spalding,  Exec.  Doc.  37,  22,  75  ;  Eells  in 
Miss.  Herald,  1866,  371;  Atkinson,  ibid.,   1869,  79;  Gray,   Oregon,  316;  Gray's 
deposition,  p.  32  above  ;  Poore  in  Atlantic  Monthly,  Oct.  1880,  534;  Eells,  History 
of  Indian  Missions,  174;  Nixon,  How  Marcus    Whitman  Saved  Oregon,  128-9. 
Barrows  in  his  Oregon,  224-238,  shows  that  the  interviews  are  unhistorical  by  a 
process  which  completely  undermines  the  rest  of  his  narrative.     Leaving  the 
question  of  candor  or  honesty  aside,  what  can  be  said  of  the  trustworthiness  of  a 
writer  who  says,  p.  233,  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  Sir  George  Simpson  was  in 
Washington  in  1842-43  and  yet  incorporates  the  myth  in  his  narrative  on  pp.  153, 
158,  202,  203,  204,  going  so  far  on  p.  203  as  to  reconstruct  a  conversation  with 
Webster  out  of  Sir  George's  Overland  Journey  Round  the  World  ?     Barrows  puts 
into  Webster's  mouth  a  remark  about  Whitman  which  was  made  by  an  anony 
mous  friend  of  Webster's  to  an  anonymous  writer !     Cf.  Barrows,  225,  with  Exec. 
Doc.  37,  24,  or  Nixon,  p.  133.    Spalding  does  the  same  thing  in  his  headline.   The 
article  is  cited  by  Spalding  from  the  Independent,  Jan.,  1870,  but  it  is  not  there 
and  has  not  been  found,  although  a  careful  search  has  been  made  for  it. 

4  "  The  only  question  of  magnitude  about  which  I  did  not  negotiate  with  Lord 
Ashburton  is  the  question  respecting  the  fisheries."    Webster  to  Mrs.  Paige,  Aug. 
23,  1842,  Private  Corresp.,  II,  146.     That  the  fisheries  were  not  to  be  considered 
in  1843  is  shown  by  Webster's  letter  to  Minister  Everett,  Nov.  28, 1842,  ibid.,  153-54. 


THE  LEGEND  OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  83 

Whitman  anything  about  their  plans,  for  the  President  re 
fused  to  give  the  Senate  that  information  in  December, 
1842, 1  and  it  was  only  with  the  greatest  difficulty  that  John 
Quincy  Adams  wormed  it  out  of  Webster  on  March  25,  in 
the  course  of  a  three-hour  interview.2  Equally  fictitious  is 
the  story  of  Sir  George  Simpson's  presence  in  Washington 
to  negotiate  or  to  influence  negotiations  in  regard  to  Oregon 
and  the  fisheries.3  How  Mr.  Spalding  came  to  fabricate 
these  particular  features  of  his  account  of  Whitman  in  Wash 
ington  and  how  they  came  to  be  accepted,  destitute  as  they 
are  of  any  foundation  in  fact,  naturally  piques  one's  curi 
osity,  and  the  following  explanation  is  offered  not  merely 

1  See  Pres.  Tyler's  special  message,  Dec.  23,  in  reply  to  the  Senate  Resolution 
of  Dec.  22,  1842.    Statesman's  Year  Book,  II,  1315,  or  Niles's  Register,  LXIII,  286. 

2  Adams's  Diary,  XI,  344-347.     The  real  Oregon  policy  of  the  administration 
was  something  very  different  from  Spalding's  invention.     It  was  to  yield  to  Eng 
land  the  territory  north  of  the  Columbia,  excepting  perhaps  an  approach  to  Puget 
Sound,  if  England  would  acquiesce  in  or  promote  our  acquisition  of  California 
from  San  Francisco  harbor  northward  and  the  annexation  of  Texas  to  the  United 
States.     English  influence  was  strong  in  Mexico  and  it  was  believed  that  if  Eng 
land  urged  these  concessions  on  Mexico  she  would  grant  them  for  a  reasonable 
consideration.     See  Adams's  Diary,  XI,  340,  347,  351,  and  355 ;  Tyler's  Tyler,  II, 
692  and  698.      Webster's  Private  Corres.,  II,  154.     That  Webster  revealed  this 
project  to  Adarns  March  25  and  about  the  same  time  or  even  later  approached 
General  Almonte,  the  Mexican  minister,  on  the  subject  shows  that  Whitman's 
interviews,  if  he  had  them,  had  not  had  the  slightest  effect.     See  Adams's  Diary, 
XI,  347  and  355,  entries  of  March  25  and  April  7.     The  legendary  date  of  Whit 
man's  arrival  in  Washington  was  March  2  or  3.     He  arrived  later  than  that,  but 
probably  not  so  late  as  the  25th. 

3  No  evidence  of  Sir  George  Simpson's  presence  in  Washington  in  1843  outside 
of  the  Spalding  narrative  and  its  derivatives  has  ever  been  found.    That  the  Ore 
gon  question  had  not  been  under  discussion  between  England  and  the  United 
States  in  the  winter  of  1843  is  clear  from  Webster's  letter  to  Minister  Everett, 
March  20, 1843,  in  which  he  says  :  "  I  have  recommended  to  the  President  already 
to  propose  to  the  British  government  to  open  a  negotiation  here  upon  the  Oregon 
subject."     Private  Corres.,  II,  171.     Webster  resigned  May  8th  and  the  attorney- 
general  Legare  took  charge  of  the  department  ad  interim.   May  16, 1843,  President 
Tyler  wrote  him :  "  We  should  also  lose  no  time  in  opening  a  negotiation  relative 
[to]  the  Oregon."     Letters  and  Times  of  the  Tylers,  III,  111.     In  the  legend,  how 
ever,  Tyler  promises  Whitman  in  March  to  stay  all  proceedings  until  he  heard 
from  Whitman's  emigration.    See  Spalding's  narrative,  above,  p.  14 ;  Gray,  Oregon, 
316 ;  C.  Eells,  above,  p.  24  ;  Perrin  B.  Whitman,  in  C.  H.  Farnam's  Descendants  of 
John  Whitman,  240. 


84  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

to  gratify  such  curiosity  but  to  illustrate  the  way  in  which 
this  history  as  a  whole  was  manufactured,  and,  in  particular, 
its  late  origin.  Spalding,  Gray,  Eells,  and  the  others  who 
accepted  the  story,  it  must  be  remembered,  had  little  knowl 
edge  of  American  history  and  few  books.  Such  information 
as  they  possessed  was  the  residuum  left  in  their  memory 
from  conversation  and  the  reading  of  newspapers.  As  time 
goes  on,  without  the  aid  of  books,  the  events  of  different 
years  run  together  and  a  man  recollects  impressions  and 
political  gossip  without  any  definite  knowledge  as  to  their 
succession  in  time. 

In  1865  they  recollected  that  they  had  heard  that  Sir 
George  Simpson  was  or  had  been  in  Washington  in  the  inter 
est  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  he 
was  in  Washington  for  this  purpose  in  1853. 1  Again,  they 
recalled  that  years  before  they  had  heard  of  negotiations 
between  the  United  States  and  England  relative  to  Canada 
in  which  the  United  States  for  concessions  to  Canada  re 
ceived  additional  privileges  in  the  cod-fisheries.  This  was 
true  in  the  Canadian  reciprocity  treaty  of  1854. 2  These 
vaguely  recollected  incidents  thrown  back  ten  years  in  time 
formed  the  nucleus  for  Spalding's  fictitious  accounts  of  the 
negotiations  of  1843,  and  made  them  seem  to  Gray  and  Eells 
in  conformity  with  their  own  recollections.3 

That  Whitman's  visit  east  dispelled  ignorance  about  Ore- 

1  Sir  George  Simpson  was  in  Washington  in  Oct.,  1853,  to  promote  the  settle 
ment  of  the  Hudson's  Bay  Company's  claims  against  the  United  States  arising 
from  their  property  and   possessory  rights.     Hudson's  Bay  and  Puget's  Sound 
Agricultural  Companies,  Evidence,  of  Hudson's  Bat/  Co.,  I,  447.    It  will  be  remem 
bered  that  it  was  the  final  arrangement  to  settle  these  claims  that  was  one  of 
the  occasions  that  gave  rise  to  the  original  publication  of  the  Whitman  story, 
see  p.  26. 

2  See  Treaties  and  Conventions  of  the  United  States ;  Rhodes'  Hist,  of  the  United 
States,  II,  8. 

3  Possibly  Gray's  error,  in  his  article  in  the  Astoria  Marine  Gazette  of  August 
6,  1866,  and  in  his  deposition,  of  asserting  that  Whitman  had  interviews  with 
Webster  and  Fillmore  may  add  plausibility  to  this  explanation.     If  Gray's  mem 
ory  moved  Fillmore's  presidency  back  ten  years  it  is  not  strange  that  Spalding's 
memory  should  not  save  him  from  moving  back  Sir  George  Simpson's  visit  and 
the  fisheries  negotiation  ten  or  eleven  years. 


THE  LEGEND  OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  85 

gon  or  inspired  enthusiasm  are  equally  without  foundation. 
No  doubt  he  could  contribute  some  facts  of  interest,  but  the 
widely  circulated  Travels  of  Farnham  were  in  the  field ; l 
Greenhow's  exhaustive  history  was  being  distributed  as  a 
public  document;  Fremont  was  under  commission  to  explore 
the  Rockies ;  the  Wilkes  Exploring  Expedition  had  explored 
the  Columbia  River  and  Puget  Sound  Regions  two  years 
earlier,  and  Sub-Indian  Agent  White  was  writing  frequent 
reports  to  his  superiors  at  Washington.  The  ignorance  and 
indifference  of  the  government  and  the  public  are  fictions  of 
a  later  day. 

In  such  investigation  of  the  newspapers  as  I  have  been 
able  to  make  I  have  found  just  one  news  item  about  Whit 
man's  journey  east,  outside  of  the  missionary  intelligence 
of  two  or  three  religious  papers  which  refer  to  his  visit  to 
Boston.  Whitman  called  on  Horace  Greeley  in  the  last  part 
of  March  and  gave  him  some  account  of  the  conditions  in 
Oregon  and  of  his  journey.  There  is  not  a  word  in  the 
interview  that  indicates  that  there  was  any  crisis  in  Oregon 
affairs,  that  he  had  a  political  errand,  or  wished  to  stir  up 
public  sentiment  on  Oregon.2  Here  was  a  unique  opportu- 

1  Travels  in  the  Great  Western  Prairies,  the  Anahuac  and  Rocky  Mountains  and 
in  the  Oregon  Territory,  by  T.  J.  Farnham,  New  York,  1843.    Besides  Farnham's 
Travels  there  were  Samuel  Parker's  Journal  of  an  Exploring  Tour  beyond  the 
Rocky  Mountains,  of  which  15,000  copies  were  sold  in  a  few  years  after  its  pub 
lication  in  1838.     Wyeth's  Memoir,  included  in  Cushing's  Report,  in   1839,  of 
which  10,000  extra  copies  were  printed,  and  J.  K.  Townsend's  Narrative  of  a 
Journey  across  the  Rocky  Mountains,  1839.    On  the  general  question  of  the  amount 
of  public  information  on  Oregon,  see  Bancroft's  Oregon,  1, 349-383,  and  Greenhow, 
Oregon,  356-389. 

2  This  interesting  description  of  Whitman's  appearance  and  travels  is  too  long 
to  quote  in  full.     He  impressed  Greeley  as  a  "  noble  pioneer,  ...  a  man  fitted 
to  be  a  chief  in  rearing  a  moral  Empire  among  the  wild  men  of  the  wilderness. 
...  He  brings  information  that  the  settlers  in  the  Willamette  are  doing  well, 
that  the  Americans  are  building  a  town  at  the  falls  of  the  Willamette."     Then 
follows  an  item  in  regard  to  members  of  Farnham's  party  and   Whitman's 
itinerary.     "  We  give  the  hardy  and  self-denying  pioneer  a  hearty  welcome  to 
his  native  land."    N.  Y.  Weekly  Tribune,  Mar.  30,  1843.     This  item  was  copied 
into  the  Cleveland  Herald  of  April  6.     In  the  same  issue  appeared  three  columns 
of  extracts  from  the  N.  Y.  Tribune's  cheap  edition  of  Farnham's  Travels.    Any 
one  can  draw  correct  conclusions  as  to  the  relative  strength  of  these  two  influences 
in  arousing  public  interest. 


86  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM' 

nity  to  reach  the  public,  for  Greeley  was  much  interested  in 
Oregon,  and  printed  all  the  news  relative  to  it  that  he  could 
gather,  and  had  published  a  cheap  edition  of  Farnham's 
Travels,  which  had  an  immense  sale.1 

Turning  now  to  Boston  we  find  in  the  records  of  his  confer 
ences  with  the  Board  the  real  history  of  his  journey  and  its 
purpose.  His  own  statement  is  summarized  in  the  record  as 
follows:  — 

"  Left  the  Oregon  country  3rd  October,  1842,  and  arrived 
at  Westport,  Mo.,  15th  February,2  and  in  Boston  30  March, 
1843.  Left  unexpectedly  and  brought  few  letters.  Letters 
of  March,  1842,  had  been  received  and  acted  on.  The  diffi 
culties  between  Mr.  Spalding  and  others  were  apparently 
healed,  and  Mr.  S.  promises  to  pursue  a  different  course. 
The  mission  wish  to  make  another  trial  with  Mr.  Smith  and 
Mr.  Gray  out  of  the  mission.  Mr.  Gray  requests  a  dismis 
sion  and  has  left  the  mission  and  gone  to  the  Methodist 
settlement.  Mr.  Rogers  also.3  .  .  .  There  is,  however,  an 
influx  of  Papists,  and  many  emigrants  from  the  U.  S.  are  ex 
pected.  The  religious  influence  needs  to  be  strengthened. 
The  mission  therefore  propose  and  request  that :  — 

1  Weekly  Tribune,  May  25,  1843. 

2  If  Whitman  did  not  arrive  at  Westport  till  Feb.  15,  it  is  clear  that  he  could 
not  have  reached  Washington,  March  2  or  3,  as  is  alleged  in  the  legendary  account. 
The  date  in  Spalding's  original  article  was  "last  of  March"  (see  above,  p.  12  ), 
but  later  he  changed  the  date  to  March  3  to  get  Whitman  to  Washington  before 
the  adjournment  of  Congress.     In  the  spring  of  1 843  it  would  have  been  almost 
if  not  quite  impossible  to  go  from  Westport,  about  three  hundred  miles  west  of 
St.  Louis,  to  Washington  in  fifteen  days.     In  that  year  the  Missouri  river  was 
frozen  up  from  February  until  the  end  of  April.     (R.  W.  Miller's  Hist,  of  Kansas 
City,  35.)     Whitman,   however,  according  to  the  recollections  of  Samuel  Par 
ker's  sons,  went  to  Ithaca,  N.  Y.,  before  going  to  Washington.     (Eells7  Marcus 
Whitman,  15.)     Mowry  goes  so  far  as  to  reject  the  date  of  Whitman's  arrival  in 
Westport  as  given  by  Whitman  a  few  weeks  later,  in  favor  of  an  earlier  date. 
This  he  obtains  by  accepting  without  question  Lovejoy's  recollection,  after  twenty- 
five  years,  of  the  date  on  which  Whitman  left  Bent's  Fort.    He  then  asserts  arbi 
trarily,  forgetting  that  it  was  midwinter,  that  it  could  not  have  taken  Whitman 
so  long  to  reach  Westport.     See  his  Marcus  Whitman,  169. 

8  The  omitted  passage  reports  the  condition  of  the  Indians  and  the  friendliness 
of  the  traders  at  Fort  Walla  Walla. 


THE  LEGEND  OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  87 

"  1.  One  preacher  be  sent  to  join  them  to  labor  at  Waiilatpu 
• —  and  that 

"  2.  A  company  of  some  five  or  ten  men  may  be  found  of 
piety  and  intelligence,  not  to  be  appointed  by  the  Board  or 
to  be  immediately  connected  with  it,  who  will  go  to  the 
Oregon  country  as  Christian  men,  and  who,  on  some  terms 
to  be  agreed  upon,  shall  take  most  of  the  land  which  the 
mission  have  under  cultivation,  with  the  mills  and  shops  at 
the  several  stations,  with  the  most  of  the  stock  and  utensils, 
paying  the  mission  in  produce  from  year  to  year,  in  seed  to 
the  Indians,  and  assistance  rendered  to  them  —  or  in  some 
similar  manner,  the  particulars  to  be  decided  upon  in  con 
sultation  with  the  men.  The  result  of  this  would  be :  — 

"  1.  Introducing  a  band  of  religious  men  into  the  country 
to  exert  a  good  religious  influence  on  the  Indians  and  the 
White  population  which  may  come  in  especially  near  the 
mission  stations. 

"  2.    Counteracting  papal  efforts  and  influences. 

"  3.  Releasing  the  missionaries  from  the  great  amount  of 
manual  labor,  which  is  now  necessary  for  them  for  their 
subsistence,  and  permitting  them  to  devote  themselves  to- 
appropriate  missionary  work  among  the  Indians,  whose  lan 
guage  they  now  speak. 

"  4.  Doing  more  for  the  civilization  and  social  improvement 
of  the  Indians  than  the  mission  can  do  unaided. 

"  5.  It  would  afford  facilities  for  religious  families  to  go 
into  the  country  and  make  immediately  a  comfortable  settle 
ment,  with  the  enjoyment  of  Christian  privileges,  —  both 
those  who  might  be  introduced  upon  the  lands  now  occupied 
by  the  mission  and  others  who  might  be  induced  to  go,  and 
settle  in  the  vicinity  of  the  stations. 

"  6.  It  would  save  the  mission  from  the  necessity  of  trading 
with  immigrants.  Those  [who]  now  enter  the  country  expect 
to  purchase  or  beg  their  supplies  from  the  mission  for  a  year 
or  two,  and  it  would  be  thought  cruel  to  refuse  [to]  provide 
such  supplies."1 

1  Submitted  to  the  Prudential  Committee  April  4,  1843,  Doct.  Marcus  Whit 
man,  Abenakis  and  Oregon  Indians,  Letter-book,  248.  Whitman  wrote  his  brother- 


88  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

Then  follow  a  few  facts  about  Oregon  but  not  a  word  on 
the  political  question  or  Whitman's  trip  to  Washington. 
According  to  Love  joy's  recollection l  Whitman  felt  that,  the 
Board  disapproved  of  his  action  in  coming  east.  Of  this 
there  is  no  record.  Yet  the  self-defensive  tone  of  his  later 
letters  reflects  the  same  impression.  In  such  a  conjuncture 
what  more  effective  defence  could  he  have  made  than  to 
show  the  urgency  of  the  political  crisis  in  Oregon  and  in 
Washington  ? 

Whitman's  journey,  in  fact,  was  measurably  successful, 
and  the  requests  of  the  mission  were  granted.  The  minute 
in  regard  to  his  project  for  an  emigration  was:  "A  plan 
which  he  proposed  for  taking  with  him,  on  his  return  to  the 
mission,  a  small  company  of  intelligent  and  pious  laymen,  to 
settle  at  or  near  the  mission  station,  but  without  expense 
to  the  Board  or  any  connection  with  it,  was  so  far  approved 
that  he  was  authorized  to  take  such  men,  if  those  of  a  suit 
able  character  and  with  whom  satisfactory  arrangements 
could  be  made,  can  be  found."2 

Such  was  Whitman's  plan  of  emigration,3  and  how  differ 
ent  from  the  legendary  proposal  to  Tyler  and  Webster  to 
take  out  a  thousand  emigrants!  The  fact  that  Whitman 
returned  in  company  with  the  emigration  of  1843  has  been 
transformed  by  legend  into  the  accomplishment  of  a  pre 
viously  announced  purpose  to  organize  and  conduct  such  a 
body  of  emigrants.  The  emigration  which  he  planned  he 

in-law  from  Shawnee  Mission,  May  28,  1843 :  "  My  plan,  you  know,  was  to  get 
funds  for  founding  schools  and  have  good  people  come  along  as  settlers  and  teach 
ers."  Trans.  Oregon  Pioneer  Association,  1891,  178. 

1  Gray's  Oregon,  326  ;  Nixon,  311.     This  is  confirmed  by  the  recollections  of 
Dr.  Geiger,  and  Perrin  B.  Whitman,  Eells'  Marcus  Whitman,  4  and  13. 

2  Records  of  the  Prudential  Committee.     Cf.  Report  of  the  A.  B.  C.  F.M.  for 
1843,  169-173  ;  Missionary  Herald,  Sept.  1843,  356. 

3  He  seems  to  have  made  it  public  in  a  measure  before  leaving  Oregon.    At 
any  rate  Hines  refers  to  "  the  departure  of  Dr.  Whitman  to  the  United  States  with 
the  avowed  intention  of  bringing  back  with  him  as  many  as  he  could  enlist  for 
Oregon  "  as  having  alarmed  the  Indians.    It  was  also  rumored  that  the  Nez-Perces 
had  despatched  one  of  their  chiefs  to  incite  the  Indians  of  the  buffalo  country  to  cut 
off  Whitman's  party  on  his  return.    Hines's  Oregon,  Auburn  and  Buffalo,  1851,  143. 
Hiues's  narrative  is  based  on  his  diary  at  the  time. 


THE  LEGEND  OF  MARCUS  WHITMAN      89 

did  not  carry  out,  feeling  that  by  going  on  immediately 
with  the  already  organized  emigration  of  1843  he  would  be 
of  greater  service.1  Whitman  did  not  organize  the  emigra 
tion  of  1843,  but  joined  it  and  rendered  valuable  services 
en  route.  As  the  facts  about  the  emigration  of  1843  are 
perfectly  accessible  in  Bancroft,2  I  shall  merely  quote  from 
Whitman's  letters  such  extracts  as  will  illustrate  his  pur 
poses,  his  relation  to  the  emigration,  and  his  own  view  of 
what  he  had  accomplished  by  coming  East. 

On  May  12,  1843,  Whitman  writes  from  St.  Louis,  "I 
have  made  up  my  mind  that  it  would  not  be  expedient  to  try 
and  take  any  families  across  this  year  except  such  as  can  go 
at  this  time.  For  that  reason  I  have  found  it  my  duty  to 
go  on  with  the  party  myself."3  Calling  attention  to  the 
Catholic  missionary  efforts,  for  which  he  refers  the  committee 
to  De  Smedt's  Indian  Sketches^  he  continues,  "  I  think  by  a 
careful  consideration  of  this  together  with  these  facts  and 
movements  you  will  realize  our  feelings  that  we  must  look 
with  interest  upon  this  the  only  spot  on  the  Pacific  Coast 
left  where  protestants  have  a  present  hope  of  a  foothold.  It 
is  requisite  that  some  good  pious  men  and  ministers  go  to 
Oregon  without  delay  as  citizens  or  our  hope  there  is  greatly 
clouded,  if  not  destroyed." 

1  He  wrote  his  wife's  parents  from  Waiilatpu,  May  16,  1844  :  "I  did  not  mis 
judge  as  to  my  duty  to  return  home ;  the  importance  of  my  accompanying  the 
emigration  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  consequent  scarcity  of  provisions  on  the 
other,  strongly  called  for  my  return,  and  forbid  my  bringing  another  party  that 
year."     Trans,  of  the  Oregon  Pioneer  Association,  1893,  64. 

2  Cf.  Bancroft,  Oregon,  I,  390  ff.     It  is  perhaps  unnecessary  to  say  that  Whit 
man  never  pretended  that  he  organized  the  emigration.     In  his  letter  to  the  Sec 
retary  of  War,  received  June  22,  1844,  he  wrote:  "The  Government  will  now 
doubtless  for  the  first  time  be  apprised  through  you,  or  by  means  of  this  commu 
nication,  of  the  immense  immigration  of  families  to  Oregon  which  has  taken  place 
this  year.     I  have,  since  our  interview,  been  instrumental  in  piloting  ...  no  less 
than  three  hundred  families,"  etc.     Nixon,  316.     He  would  not  have  expressed 
himself  in  this  way  if  his  achievement  had  been  the  fulfilment  of  his  pledge  to  Tyler 
to  organize  and  conduct  such  a  company. 

3  Two  weeks  later,  May  27,  he  wrote  from  Shawnee  Mission  School :  "  I  hope 
to  start  to-morrow.   I  shall  have  an  easy  journey  as  I  have  not  much  to  do,  having 
no  one  depending  on  me."     Trans.  Oregon  Pioneer  Association,  1891,  177. 


90  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

On  May  30,  he  writes  again  from  Shawnee :  — 

"  I  cannot  give  you  much  of  an  account  of  the  emigrants 
until  we  get  on  the  road.  It  is  said  that  there  are  over  two 
hundred  men  besides  women  and  children.  They  look  like 
a  fair  representation  of  a  country  population.  .  .  .  We  do 
not  ask  you  to  become  the  patrons  of  emigration  to  Oregon, 
but  we  desire  you  to  use  your  influence  that  in  connexion 
with  all  the  influx  into  this  country  there  may  be  a  good 
proportion  of  good  men  from  our  own  denomination  who 
shall  avail  themselves  of  the  advantages  of  the  country  in 
common  with  others.  .  .  .  We  cannot  feel  it  at  all  just  that 
we  are  doing  nothing  while  worldly  men  and  papists  are 
doing  so  much.  De  Smedt's  business  in  Europe  can  be 
seen,  I  think,  at  the  top  of  the  23d  page  of  his  Indian 
Sketches,  etc.  You  will  see  by  his  book  I  think  that  the 
papal  effort  is  designed  to  convey  over  the  country  to  the 
English.  ...  I  think  our  greatest  hope  for  having  Oregon 
at  least  part  protestant  now  lies  in  encouraging  a  proper 
attention  of  good  men  to  go  there  while  the  country  is  open. 
I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  operation  of  Farnham  of 
Salem  and  the  Bensons  of  N.  York  in  Oregon.  I  am  told 
credibly  that  secretly  government  aids  them  with  the  Secret 
service  fund.1  Capt.  Howard  of  Maine  is  also  in  expecta 
tion  of  being  employed  by  government  to  take  out  emigrants 
should  the  Oregon  bill  pass." 

On  Nov.  1  he  wrote  from  the  Fort  Walla  Walla:  "My 
journey  across  the  mountains  was  very  much  prolonged  by 
the  necessity  for  me  to  pilot  the  emigrants.  I  tried  to  leave 
the  party,  at  different  points,  and  push  forward  alone, 
but  I  found  that  I  could  not  do  so  without  subjecting  the 
emigrants  to  considerable  risk."  Then  follows  a  plea  for 
more  help  from  the  mission  board :  — 

"  We  very  much  need  good  men  to  locate  themselves  two, 
three  or  four  in  a  place  and  secure  a  good  influence  for  the 
Indians,  and  form  a  nucleus  for  religious  institutions,  and 
keep  back  Romanism.  This  country  must  be  occupied  by 

1  Cf.  Parrish's  statement  in  Bancroft,  I,  177. 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS    WHITMAN  91 

Americans  or  foreigners :  if  it  is  by  the  latter,  they  will  be 
mostly  papists.  ...  I  regret  very  much  that  I  was  obliged 
to  return  so  soon  to  this  country,  but  nothing  was  more 
evidently  my  duty.  .  .  .  Yet  I  do  not  regret  having  visited 
the  States,  for  I  feel  that  either  this  country  must  be  Amer 
ican  or  else  foreign  and  mostly  papal.  If  I  never  do  more 
than  to  have  been  one  of  the  first  to  take  white  women  across 
the  mountains  and  prevent  the  disorder  and  inaction  which 
would  have  occurred  by  the  breaking  up  of  the  present 
emigration  and  establishing  the  first  wagon  road  across  to 
the  border  of  the  Columbia  river,  I  am  satisfied.1  I  do  not 
feel  that  we  can  look  on  and  see  foreign  and  papal  influence 
making  its  greatest  efforts  and  we  hold  ourselves  as  expatri 
ated  and  neutral.  I  am  determined  to  exert  myself  for  my 
country  and  to  procure  such  regulations  and  laws  as  will 
best  secure  both  the  Indians  and  white  men  in  their  transit 
and  settlement  intercourse."2 

In  the  following  summer,  on  July  22,  Whitman  wrote  in 
regard  to  the  emigration  of  1843,  "The  lateness  of  the  spring 
prevented  them  from  setting  out  so  soon  by  a  month  as  in 
ordinary  seasons.  No  one  but  myself  was  present  to  give 
them  the  assurance  of  getting  through,3  which  was  necessary 
to  keep  up  their  spirits,  and  to  counteract  reports  which 
were  destined  to  meet  and  dishearten  them  at  every  stage  of 
the  journey."* 

From  these  contemporary  letters  it  is  clear  that  Whitman 
made  no  claim  to  have  organized  the  emigration  of  1843  or 
to  have  rendered  them  services,  beyond  encouragement  and 

1  Cf.  his  letter,  just  cited,  of  May  16,  1844  :  "As  I  hold  the  settlement  of  this 
country  by  Americans  rather  than  by  an  English  colony  most  important,  I  am 
happy  to  have  been  the  means  of  landing  so  large  an  emigration  on  to  the  shores 
of  the  Columbia,  with  their  wagons,  families,  and  stock,  all  in  safety."     Transac 
tions  of  the  Oregon  Pioneer  Association,  1893,  64. 

2  As,  for  example,  by  his  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  War. 

3  In  Hastings'  Emigrant  Guide  to  Oregon  and  California,  etc.,  Cincinnati,  1845, 
emigrants  are  cautioned  not  to  leave  Independence  later  than  May  1.  147. 

*  All  these  letters  are  in  the  Letter-book,  Oregon  Indians.  I  may  hereby 
express  my  appreciation  of  the  courtesy  with  which  the  officials  of  the  Board  gave 
me  access  to  their  records. 


92  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

advice  and  guidance.     These  services  were  amply  recognized 
by  the  leaders  of  the  emigration. 

In  Jesse  Applegate's  most  interesting  narrative,  "  A  Day 
with  the  Cow  Column,"  and  in  Peter  H.  Burnett's  Recollec 
tions  there  are  warm  tributes  to  Whitman's  disinterested  and 
untiring  efforts  for  the  welfare  of  the  emigration ;  but  neither 
of  these  leaders  of  the  movement  intimates  that  the  organiza 
tion  of  the  expedition  was  owing  in  any  way  to  Whitman.1 
In  none  of  the  strictly  contemporary  sources  is  Whitman 
credited  with  having  organized  the  emigration  and  in  many 
of  them  he  is  not  even  mentioned.2 

1  Applegate's  article  was  originally  published  in  the  Overland  Monthly,  August, 
1868,  I,  127-133.     It  is  reprinted  in  Nixon's  How  Marcus  Whitman  Saved  Oregon, 
146-163,  and  in  the  Quarterly  of  the  Oregon  Historical  Society  for  December,  1900. 
Applegate  says  :  "  Whitman's  great  experience  and  indomitable  energy  were  of 
priceless  value  to  the  emigrating  column.  ...  To  no  other  individual  are  the 
emigrants  of  1843  so  much  indebted  for  the  successful  conclusion  of  their  journey 
as  to  Marcus  Whitman,"   131-132.     Cf.  Burnett's  Recollections  and  Opinions  of  an 
Old  Pioneer,  N.  Y.,  1880,  "  Dr.  Whitman  who  had  performed  much  hard  labor  for 
us  and  was  deserving  of  our  warmest  gratitude."    126. 

2  The  emigration  of  1843  attracted  much  attention  in  the  newspapers,  but 
Whitman's  name  is  nowhere  mentioned  as  a  leader  with  those  of  the  Applegates, 
Burnett,  and  the  others.      See  Burnett's  Recollections,   97-98.     After  Burnett 
decided  to  go,  he  "  set  to  work  to  organize  a  wagon  company.     I  visited  the  sur 
rounding  counties  wherever  I  could  find  a  sufficient  audience  and  succeeded  even 
beyond  my  own  expectations."     Cf .  this  extract  from  a  letter  from  Iowa  Territory 
dated  March  4, 1843  :  "  Just  now  Oregon  is  the  pioneer's  land  of  promise.     Hun 
dreds  are  already  prepared  to  start  thither  with  the  spring,  while  hundreds  of 
others  are  anxiously  awaiting  the  action  of  Congress  in  reference  to  that  country, 
as  the  signal  of  their  departure.    Some  have  already  been  to  view  the  country  and 
have  returned  with  a  flattering  tale  of  the  inducements  it  holds  out.    They  have 
painted  it  to  their  neighbors  in  the  highest  colors.     These  have  told  it  to  others. 
The  Oregon  fever  has  broken  out  and  is  now  raging  like  any  other  contagion." 
N.  Y.  Weekly  Tribune,  April  1,  1 843.     As  this  letter  is  dated  March  4,  and  Whit 
man  arrived  at  the  present  site  of  Kansas  City,  Feb.  15,  and  went  straight  to  St. 
Louis,  it  is  obvious  he  had  no  connection  with  this  excitement.     Several  of  the 
writers  realizing  this  have  attributed  to  Love  joy  the  work  of  getting  up  the  emi 
gration  ;  but  he  was  at  Bent's  fort  in  Colorado  while  Whitman  was  in  the  East. 
After  his  arrival  in  Oregon,  Burnett  wrote  an  account  of  the  journey  which  was 
published  in  the  N.  Y.  Herald,  and  later  in  Geo.  Wilkes'  History  of  Oregon,  N.  Y., 
1845,  Part  II,  63 ff.  (cf.  Burnett's  Recollections,  177).     In  this  narrative  the  only 
reference  to  Whitman  in  connection  with  the  organization  of  the  expedition  is  the 
following:  "  A  meeting  was  held  in  the  latter  part  of  the  day  [May  18],  which 
resulted  in  appointing  a  committee  to  return  to  Independence  and  make  inquiries 


THE  LEGEND  OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  93 

The  real  force  behind  the  emigration  of  1843  was  the  pro 
visions  for  granting  lands  to  settlers  in  Linn's  bill  which  it 
was  expected  would  pass  Congress  in  1843. l  That  a  large 
emigration  was  in  preparation  for  1843  Whitman  knew  in 

1842,  five   months   before  he  left  Oregon.     May  12,  1842, 
Gray  wrote  from  Waiilatpu :  "  There  will  probably  be  a  large 
party  of  immigrants  coming  to  this  country  in  the  spring  of 

1843.  Some  young  men  are  now  returning  with  the  expec 
tation  of  bringing  out  a  party  next  spring."2     That  Whit 
man  may  have  urged  individuals  to   join  the  emigration  is 
likely  enough,  and  is  affirmed  by  Lovejoy,  that  he  gave  some 
advice  to  prospective  emigrants  while  on  his  way  East  seems 
certain;3  but  he  had  no  time  to  do  more,  and  they  would 
not  have  had  time  to  get  ready  unless  they  had  begun  before 
his  arrival.4     The  legendary  account  of  Whitman's  relation 
to  the  emigration  of  1843  has  been  supported  by  a  letter 
published  by  Spalding  from  John  Zachrey,  one  of  the  emi 
grants  of  1843,  who  wrote  in  1868 :  — 

"In  answer- to  your  inquiries,  I  would  say  that  my  father 
and  his  family  emigrated  to  Oregon  in  1843,  fror$  the  State 
of  Texas.  I  was  then  17  years  old.  The  occasion  of  my 
father  starting  that  season  for  this  country,  as  also  several 
of  our  neighbors,  was  a  publication  by  Dr.  Whitman,  or 
from  his  representations,  concerning  Oregon  and  the  route 
from  the  States  to  Oregon.  In  the  pamphlet  the  doctor 

of  Dr.  Whitman,  missionary,  who  had  an  establishment  on  the  Walla  Walla, 
respecting  the  practicability  of  the  road."  I  am  indebted  to  Mr.  W.  I.  Marshall 
for  this  reference  to  Burnett's  contemporary  account. 

1  The  proofs  of  this  are  numerous.     Dr.  Whitman  himself  in  his  letter  to  the 
Secretary  of  War,  received  June  24, 1844,  says  of  the  emigration  :  "  The  majority 
of  them  are  farmers,  lured  by  the  prospect  of  bounty  in  lands,  by  the  reported  fer 
tility  of  the  soil,"  etc.     Nixon,  316.     "  But  if  the  Oregon  bill  passes,  a  party  under 
Lieutenant  Fremont,  or  some  one  else,  will  go  through  the  Rocky   Mountains 
to  Oregon  ;  and  parties  of  emigrants  or  explorers  will  go  also."     Letter  of  Asa 
Gray  to  George  Englemann,  Feb.  13,  1843.     Letters  of  Asa  Gray,  I,  297. 

2  Letter-book,  Oregon  Indians. 

3  "  A  great  many  cattle  are  going,  but  no  sheep,  from  a  mistake  of  what  I  said 
in  passing."     Whitman's  letter  to  his  brother-in-law,  May  28,  1843.     Trans.  Ore 
gon  Pioneer  Assoc.,  1891,  178. 

*  Cf.  statement  of  Elwood  Evans,  p.  104  below. 


94  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

described  Oregon,  the  soil,  climate  and  its  desirableness  for 
American  colonies,  and  said  that  he  had  crossed  the  Rocky 
Mountains  that  winter  principally  to  take  back  that  season  a 
tram  of  wagons  to  Oregon.  We  had  been  told  that  wagons 
could  not  be  taken  beyond  Fort  Hall.  But  in  this  pamphlet 
the  doctor  assured  his  countrymen  that  wagons  could  be 
taken  through  to  the  Columbia  River  and  to  the  Dalles,  and 
from  thence  by  boats  to  the  Willamette;  that  himself  and 
mission  party  had  taken  their  families,  cattle  and  wagons 
through  to  the  Columbia,  six  years  before.  It  was  this 
assurance  of  the  missionary  that  induced  my  father  and  sev 
eral  of  his  neighbors  to  sell  out  and  start  at  once  for  this 
country."  l 

Mr.  Spalding  is  our  sole  authority  for  the  text  of  this 
letter.  A  reference  to  p.  62  will  show  the  reader  how  he 
interpolated  Dr.  White's  letter  to  the  Indian  Commissioner. 
That  this  letter  of  Zachrey's  contains  interpolations  is  prac 
tically  proved  by  the  fact  that  one  of  its  statements,  which 
is  absolutely  false,  occurs  elsewhere  in  a  document  which 
Spalding  wrote.  On  pp.  71-78  of  Exec.  Doc.  37  is  a  narra 
tive  of  the  Oregon  missionary  history  in  the  form  of  a  series 
of  resolutions  adopted  at  three  different  times  by  three  differ 
ent  churches.  This  narrative  is  identical  in  much  of  its 
language  and  in  its  ideas  with  Spalding 's  other  narratives,  of 
which  extracts  are  given  on  pp.  9-15  and  100-101. 

Resolution  6  reads:  "By  the  arrival  of  the  Protestant 
Whitman  at  the  city  of  Washington,  in  March,  1843,  through 
untold  winter  sufferings  in  the  mountains  of  Utah  and  New 
Mexico,  not  an  hour  too  soon  to  prevent  the  transfer  of  all 
Oregon  to  Great  Britain  to  go  into  the  Ashburton  and 
Webster  treaty  for  a  cod-fishery  on  Newfoundland:  by  his 
personal  representations  to  President  Tyler  of  this  country, 
of  its  vast  importance,  and  his  assurance  of  a  wagon  route, 
as  he  assured  him  we  had  taken  cattle,  a  wagon,  and  his 
missionary  families  through  six  years  before,"  etc.2  The 
false  statement  that  is  common  to  the  Zachrey  letter  and 

l  Exec.  Doc.  87,  26.  2  Exec.  Doc.  37,  75,  76. 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  95 

to  the  narrative  embodied  in  this  resolution  is  the  asser 
tion  that  Whitman  took  his  wagon  through  to  the  Columbia 
in  1836.  This  was  not  true  and  could  not  have  been 
truthfully  asserted  by  Whitman  either  to  President  Tyler 
or  in  the  supposititious  pamphlet.  Mrs.  Whitman  says  in 
her  diary  of  that  journey  under  date  of  Aug.  22 :  "  As  for 
the  wagon,  it  is  left  at  the  Fort"1  [Boise'].  If  the  Zaehrey 
letter  is  accepted  in  its  entirety  Whitman  is  proved  to  have 
falsified.  If  it  was  interpolated  by  Spalding,  as  I  think  is 
clear,  how  much  of  it  did  Zaehrey  write  ?  No  copy  of  any 
pamphlet,  nor  any  newspaper  article  by  Whitman  published 
for  the  purpose  indicated  has  ever  been  found.  Nor  would 
it,  humanly  speaking,  have  been  possible  for  Whitman, 
who  reached  Westport  Feb.  15,  and  Boston  March  30,  and 
was  back  again  in  St.  Louis  May  12,  to  write  a  pamphlet 
which  could  be  circulated  in  Texas,2  where  Zaehrey  lived, 
early  enough  for  his  father  and  his  neighbors  to  sell  out  and 
get  ready  to  start  from  Independence,  May  22,  for  Oregon.3 

The  genuine  residuum  of  the  Zaehrey  letter,  less  the  Spald 
ing  interpolations,  represents  the  coalescence  after  twenty- 
three  years  in  Zachrey's  memory  of  what  Whitman  did  on 
the  journey  for  the  emigrants  with  the  indistinct  recollection 
of  the  inducements  to  start.  It  is  probable  that  reports  of 
some  of  Dr.  White's  speeches  to  promote  emigration  in 
1842  4  reached  the  elder  Zaehrey,  and  the  boy  later  attributed 
the  efforts  of  White  to  Whitman.  The  other  testimonies 
advanced  to  prove  that  Whitman  was  an  active  promoter  of 
the  emigration  of  1843  likewise  dissolve  into  thin  air  when 
subjected  to  criticism.  In  1883  Myron  Eells  printed  per 
sonal  statements  from  fourteen  survivors  of  the  emigration 

1  Transactions  of  the  Oregon  Pioneer  Assoc.,  1891,52.     The  cart,  the  wagon 
was  changed  to  a  cart  two  days  before  they  arrived  at  Fort  Hall  (ibid.,  47),  was 
still  at  Fort  Boise  in  1839.     See  Farnham's  Travels,  77. 

2  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  settled  part  of  Texas,  then  a  foreign  State, 
was  hundreds  of  miles  from  Independence. 

3  This  date  is  given  by  Burnett,  Recollections,  99.    Burnett  kept  a  diary  of  the 
journey. 

4  Cf.  White's  Ten  Years  in  Oregon,  142-143. 


96  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL  CRITICISM 

of  1843,  one  of  which  was  the  Zachrey  letter.1  Not  a  single 
one  of  the  fourteen  who  was  a  responsible  head  of  a  family 
in  1843  reported  that  he  was  induced  to  go  by  Dr.  Whitman. 
The  two  Applegates  and  J.  M.  Shively,  leaders  of  the  move 
ment,  asserted  that  they  never  heard  of  Whitman  till  he 
joined  the  emigration  on  the  Platte  River.  One  reported 
that  he  believed  many  were  influenced  by  Whitman,  but,  on 
the  other  hand,  J.  W.  Nesmith,  in  later  life  a  senator  from 
Oregon,  wrote:  "I  know  of  no  person  who  was  induced  to 
come  to  Oregon  in  consequence  of  Dr.  Whitman's  represen 
tations."  Of  the  three  besides  Zachrey  who  testify  to  Whit 
man's  influence  in  their  own  cases  one  was  a  boy  of  ten  in 
1843,  another  presumably  a  young  girl  in  1843,  who  attrib 
uted  her  coming  to  "a  pamphlet  Dr.  Whitman  wrote,"  and 
the  third  a  man  who  said  that  his  father  was  on  the  way  to 
Wisconsin,  and  was  persuaded  by  Whitman  to  go  to  Oregon 
instead.  In  reviewing  this  question  Dr.  Mowry  omits  all 
the  adverse  testimony,  candidly  printed  though  uncritically 
and  fallaciously  summarized  by  Myron  Eells,  while  President 
Penrose  calmly  and  reassuringly  writes :  "  Undoubtedly  there 
were  many  who  had  not  heard  of  Dr.  Whitman  and  were  not 
influenced  by  him  to  go,  but  on  the  other  hand  a  con 
siderable  number,  about  two-fifths  of  those  who  have  been 
questioned  on  the  subject,  say  that  they  went  because  of 
representations  made  by  Dr.  Whitman,  either  personally  or 
through  newspapers  or  through  a  pamphlet."2  The  recol 
lections  of  those  who  were  children  or  youth  in  1843,  that 
their  parents  were  influenced  by  Whitman's  articles  or  pam 
phlet  all  refer  to  Dr.  White's  efforts  in  1842.  Such  a 
confusion  at  first  sight  seems  less  likely  than  it  really  was 
because  of  the  enormous  factitious  reputation  that  the  legend 
has  created  for  Whitman  in  the  last  thirty  years.  But  from 
1842  Dr.  White  was  a  more  prominent  and  a  better  known 
man  than  Dr.  Whitman.  As  the  representative  of  the 
United  States  government  he  would  be  a  conspicuous  person 

1  Marcus  Whitman.  M.D.,  27-31. 

2  His  letter  to  the  Boston  Transcript,  Jan.  21,  1901. 


THE  LEGEND  OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  97 

in  the  recollections  of  those  days.  That  the  confusion  was 
natural  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  in  the  earliest  reports  of 
the  Whitman  massacre  it  is  Dr.  White  and  not  Dr.  Whitman 
whose  death  was  announced.1 

As  th«  years  passed  Dr.  Whitman  attached  so  much  im 
portance  to  his  services  to  the  emigration  that  he  came  to 
emphasize  such  a  service  as  the  main  purpose  of  his  journey 
to  the  East.  If  it  had  been  among  his  purposes  it  was  to 
such  a  degree  incidental  and  minor  that  he  apparently  never 
mentioned  it  to  the  Committee  of  the  American  Board,  nor 
did  his  fellow  missionary,  Mr.  Walker,  refer  to  it. 

In  1847,  in  defending  his  return  East  in  1842,  Whitman 
declared  that  the  American  interest  in  Oregon  hinged  on  the 
success  of  the  immigration  of  1843.  Had  that  been  disas 
trous  it  may  be  easily  seen  what  would  have  become  of  Amer 
ican  interests.  The  disaster  last  year  to  those  "  who  left  the 
track  I  made  for  them  in  1843  .  .  .  demonstrates  what  I  did 
in  making  my  way  to  the  States  in  the  winter  of  1842-3, 
after  the  third  of  October.  It  was  to  open  a  practical  route 
and  safe  passage  and  secure  a  favorable  report  of  the  jour 
ney  from  emigrants,  which  in  connection  with  other  objects 
caused  me  to  leave  my  family  and  brave  the  toils  and 
dangers  of  the  journey."  He  reiterates  this  same  idea 
the  month  before  his  death.2 

1  New  York  Tribune,  May  25,  1848.     From  Pittsburg  Chronicle,  by  telegraph 
from  Louisville,  May  21  :  "By  the  arrival  of  Major  Meek,  late  and  exciting  news 
has  been  received  from  Oregon."    Then  follows  a  brief  account  of  the  massacre. 
"Dr.  White  and  his  wife  and  eighteen  others  were  killed."     Meek's  winter  jour 
ney  across  the  mountains  to  bring  the  news  and  get  help  was  as  remarkable  a 
performance  as  Whitman's,  although  it  has  been  eclipsed  by  the  legend. 

2  These  letters  were  printed  in  the  Oregon  Native  Son,  February,  1900, 471-472. 
In   1846,  in  urging  courage  and  resolution  upon  a  weaker  brother,  Whitman 
goes  so  far  in  claiming  to  have  saved  Oregon  by  his  own  energies  that  we  get  a 
glimpse  perhaps  of  one  of  the  germs  of  the  legend.     "  I  was  in  Boston  when  the 
famous  time  came  for  the  end  of  the  world,  but  I  did  not  conclude  that  as  the 
time  was  so  short  I  would  not  concern  myself  to  return  to  my  family.  ...  I  had 
adopted  Oregon  for  my  field  of  labour,  so  that  I  must  superintend  the  immigration 
of  that  year,  which  was  to  lay  the  foundation  for  the  speedy  settlement  of  the 
country*  if  prosperously  conducted  and  safely  carried  through ;  but  if  it  failed  and 
became  disastrous,  the  reflex  influence  would  be  to  discourage  for  a  long  time  any 

7 


98  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

It  may  be  questioned  if  the  emigration  of  1843  would  have 
met  with  disaster  if  Whitman  had  not  been  with  them,  or, 
if  it  had,  whether  that  would  have  really  made  any  differ 
ence  in  the  history  of  the  Oregon  question.  The  sufferings 
of  the  emigration  of  1846  did  not  prevent  the  southern  road 
from  being  attempted  again  in  1847  l  and  with  success.  The 
value  of  Whitman's  services  in  1843  was  great  and  need 
riot  be  questioned.  That  they  were  indispensable  there  is  no 
reason  to  suppose. 

Two  questions  may  now  be  considered  which  have  fre 
quently  been  urged  in  support  of  the  legend.  First,  if  the 
fate  of  Oregon  was  not  at  stake  but  only  the  continuance  of 
the  mission,  why  did  Whitman  make  the  perilous  winter 
journey;  why  did  he  not  wait  till  summer?  The  answer 
is  twofold.  First,  by  starting  immediately  he  hoped  to 
reach  the  settlements  before  winter  set  in.2  If  successful 
he  would  have  time  to  get  up  his  party  of  Christian  lay 
helpers  arid  return  the  following  summer.  If  he  waited  till 
summer  he  would  be  absent  from  his  mission  and  his  wife 
two  years.  The  second  question  is,  why  did  he  go  to  Wash- 
further  attempt  to  settle  the  country  across  the  mountains,  which  would  be  to  see 
it  abandoned  altogether.  Now,  mark  the  difference  between  the  sentiments  of 
you  and  me.  Since  that  time  you  have  allowed  yourself  to  be  laid  aside  from  the 
ministry  for  an  opinion  only.  .  .  .  Within  that  time  I  have  returned  to  my  field 
of  labour,  and  in  my  return  brought  a  large  immigration  of  about  one  thousand 
individuals  safely  through  the  long  and  the  last  part  of  it  an  untried  route  to  the 
western  shores  of  the  continent.  Now  that  they  were  once  safely  conducted 
through,  three  successive  immigrations  have  followed  after  them,  and  two 
routes  for  wagons  are  now  open  to  the  Willamette  valley.  Mark,  had  I  been  of 
your  mind  I  should  have  slept,  and  now  the  Jesuit  Papists  would  have  been  in 
quiet  possession  of  this  the  only  spot  in  the  western  horizon  of  America  not  their 
own.  They  were  fast  fixing  themselves  here,  and  had  we  missionaries  had  no 
American  population  to  come  in  to  hold  on  and  give  stability,  it  would  have  been 
but  a  small  work  for  them  and  the  friends  of  English  interests,  which  they  had 
also  fully  avowed,  to  have  routed  us,  and  then  the  country  might  have  slept  in 
their  hands  forever."  Letter  to  Rev.  L.  P.  Judson,  Transactions  Oregon  Pioneer 
Assoc.,  1893,  200-201. 

1  Bancroft,  I,  543-572. 

2  Mrs.  Whitman  wrote  her  parents,  Sept.  30,  1842:  "He  wishes  to  cross  the 
mountains  during  this  mouth,  I  mean  October,  and  to  reach  St.  Louis  about  the 
first  of  Dec."     Trans.  Oregon  Pioneer  Assoc.,  168. 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS    WHITMAN  99 

ington  first  if  his  main  business  was  in  Boston  ?  The  answer 
to  that  is  that  as  his  business  in  Washington  was  to  urge 
government  measures  to  make  emigration  to  Oregon  easier 
and  safer,  he  could  not  delay  because  the  people  he  wished 
to  see  might  scatter  to  their  homes.  His  main  purpose  in 
going  to  Boston  would  not  be  affected  one  way  or  the  other 
by  a  delay  of  a  week  or  two,  but  his  opportunities  in  Wash 
ington  to  urge  his  plan  for  protecting  and  aiding  emigration 
might  be  seriously  diminished  by  a  few  days'  delay  after  the 
adjournment  of  Congress. 

That  the  generally  accepted  story  of  Marcus  Whitman  is 
entirely  unhistorical  has  been  demonstrated.  There  was  no 
political  crisis  in  Oregon  affairs  in  1842-43  either  in  Oregon 
to  give  occasion  to  Whitman's  ride,  or  in  Washington  to 
render  his  arrival  and  information  important.  There  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  the  course  of  events  in  Oregon  or 
in  Washington  would  not  have  gone  on  just  as  they  did  if 
Whitman  had  stayed  in  Waiilatpu. 

The  real  history  of  Marcus  Whitman  is  briefly  as  follows : 
Sent  out  as  a  missionary  to  the  Oregon  Indians  in  1836,  he 
established  a  prosperous  station  which  proved  a  haven  of  rest 
for  the  weary  emigrant  and  traveller.  In  1842  he  is  ordered 
to  give  up  the  station,  but  at  the  very  time  when  the  orders 
come  a  large  emigration  party  arrives  much  reduced  by  the 
hardships  of  the  journey  from  Fort  Hall.  Their  leader,  Dr. 
White,  announces  that  the  United  States  are  going  to  occupy 
the  country  and  that  many  are  preparing  to  come  the  follow 
ing  year. 

If  the  mission  station  is  abandoned  it  would  be  giving  up 
Protestant  mission  work  just  at  the  time  when  the  Catholics 
had  begun  to  come  in  and  when  the  country  was  going  to  be 
settled,  and  when  the  mission  station  would  be  of  especial 
service  to  the  emigrants.  If  it  were  still  kept  up,  more  help 
must  be  secured :  clergymen  for  religious  work  and  Christian 
laymen  to  attend  to  the  increasing  business  of  the  mission 
station,  the  farms,  the  mill,  the  sheltering  of  the  sick  and 
orphans,  etc.  If  emigration  on  a  grand  scale  was  to  begin, 


100  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

the  government  ought  to  protect  it  and  establish  supply  sta 
tions.  If  anything  was  to  be  done  to  reverse  the  action  of 
the  Board  it  must  be  done  at  once,  or  a  year  would  be  lost. 

Dr.  Whitman  was  an  energetic,  impulsive  man,  of  sanguine 
temperament,  and  he  revolted  at  giving  up  the  station  at  the 
time  when  its  best  opportunity  to  render  material  and  tangible 
services  to  Oregon  was  at  hand. 

The  missionaries  gather  and  discuss  the  situation.  Before 
they  separate  he  is  resolved.  He  will  listen  to  no  dissuasion. 
After  presenting  the  needs  of  the  emigrants  at  Washington 
and  securing  the  reversal  of  the  decision  of  the  Board  at 
Boston  he  returns.  The  mission  increases  in  (its  usefulness 
to  the  emigrants.  It  is  a  hospital  and  orphan  asylum  and  a 
refuge  for  the  sick  and  helpless.  The  Indians,  however,  for 
whom  it  was  established,  foresee  the  inevitable.  Disease 
and  death  invade  their  ranks;  superstition  and  jealousy, 
distrust  and  resentment,  take  possession  of  their  minds,  and 
the  dreadful  tragedy  of  Waiilatpu  follows. 

That  Marcus  Whitman  was  a  devoted  and  heroic  missionary 
who  braved  every  hardship  and  imperilled  his  life  for  the 
cause  of  Christian  missions  and  Christian  civilization  in  the 
far  Northwest  and  finally  died  at  his  post,  a  sacrifice  to  the 
cause,  will  not  be  gainsaid.  That  he  deserves  grateful  com 
memoration  in  Oregon  and  Washington  is  beyond  dispute. 
But  that  he  is  a  national  figure  in  American  history,  or  that 
he  "saved"  Oregon,  must  be  rejected  as  a  fiction. 

NOTE   A 
EXTRACT  FROM  THE  MEMORIAL  OF  H.  H.  SPALDING  TO  CONGRESS, 

ENTITLED    AMERICAN    CONGRESS    V.     PROTESTANTISM    IN    OREGON, 

EXEC.  Doc.  37,  41sT  CONG.,  THIRD  SESS.,  P.  42 

And  that  said  Whitman,  by  his  sleepless  vigilance,  became 
convinced  that  a  deep-laid  plan  was  about  culminating  to  secure 
this  rich  country  of  Oregon  Territory  to  Great  Britain,  from 
misrepresentation  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  and  for  want  of 
information  as  to  the  character  and  value  of  the  country  on  the 
part  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS    WHITMAN  101 

And  that  to  pravent  the  sale  and  transfer  of  said  Territory,  and 
the  consequent  loss  to  the  United  States  of  this  great  Northwest 
and  its  valuable  seaboard,  and  the  great  commercial  considera 
tions  therewith,  said  Whitman  did,  in  the  dead  of  winter,  at  his 
own  expense,  and  without  asking  or  expecting  a  dollar  from  any 
source,  cross  the  continent,  amid  the  snows  of  the  Eocky  Moun 
tains  and  the  bleakness  of  the  intervening  plains,  inhabited  by 
hostile  savages,  suffering  severe  hardships  and  perils  from  being 
compelled  to  swim  broad,  rapid,  and  ice-floating  rivers,  and  to 
wander  lost  in  the  terrific  snowstorms,  subsisting  on  mule  and 
dog  meat,  and  reached  the  city  of  Washington  not  an  hour  too 
soon,  confronting  the  British  agents  Ashburton,  Fox,  and  Simp 
son,  who,  there  is  evidence  to  show,  in  a  short  time  would  have 
consummated  their  plans  and  secured  a  part,  if  not  all,  of  our 
territory  west  of  the  mountains  to  Great  Britain,  and  by  his  own 
personal  knowledge  disproving  their  allegations,  and  by  com 
municating  to  President  Tyler  important  information  concerning 
the  country,  and  the  fact  that  he  had  taken  his  wagons  and  mis 
sion  families  through  years  before,  and  that  he  proposed  taking 
back  a  wagon-train  of  emigrants  that  season,  did  thereby  pre 
vent  the  sale  and  loss  of  this  our  rich  Pacific  domain  to  the 
people  of  the  United  States. 

And  that  said  Whitman  did  then  return  to  Oregon  Territory 
and  conduct  the  first  wagon-train  of  1,000  souls  to  the  Columbia 
River,  thereby  greatly  increasing  American  influence,  and  com 
pletely  breaking  the  influence  of  the  British  monopoly  and  add 
ing  immensely  to  the  courage  and  wealth  of  the  little  American 
settlement. 

NOTE  B 

THE  EARLIEST  PRINTED  VERSION  OF  WHITMAN'S  POLITICAL  SER 
VICES  IN  BEHALF  OF  OREGON.  PUBLISHED  IN  "THE  SACRA 
MENTO  UNION,"  Nov.  16,  1864,  IN  AN  ACCOUNT  BY  "C."  [S. 
A.  CLARKE]  OF  THE  PRESENTATION  TO  THE  STATE  OF  OREGON 
OF  THE  TOMAHAWK  WITH  WHICH  IT  WAS  ASSERTED  DR.  WHIT 
MAN  WAS  KILLED 

In  accepting  the  gift  the  Speaker  of  the  Oregon  Assembly, 
Mr.  J.  H.  Moores,  "Kelated  an  incident  of  our  early  history 


102          'ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL  CRITICISM 

never  to  my  knowledge  before  given  to  the  public,  and  that 
was  heard  by  him  from  the  lips  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Spalding,  an 
other  early  missionary,  and  the  coadjutor  of  Dr.  Whitman. 
When  the  Ashburton  Treaty  was  in  progress,  news  came  to  the 
little  settlement  in  Oregon  that  the  government  was  about  dis 
posing  of  the  whole  Northwest  coast  to  the  English,  and  it  made 
a  deep  impression  on  the  mind  of  Whitman,  whose  long  resi 
dence  had  produced  a  sincere  attachment  for  the  land  of  his 
adoption.  He  appreciated  its  future  value  and  importance,  and 
looked  upon  its  broad  rivers  and  fertile  valleys  as  fields  for  the 
development  of  population,  wealth,  and  power.  Time  has  real 
ized  the  conjecture,  which  he  did  not  live  to  see,  but  he  was 
restless  under  the  impression  that  his  favorite  region  might  be 
transferred  to  another  power,  and,  midwinter  as  it  was,  he 
undertook  the  dreary  and  then  dreaded  journey  across  the  plains 
for  the  sole  purpose  to  remonstrate  against  the  act.  Webster 
was  Secretary  of  State,  and  to  him  he  went,  after  hastening  to 
Washington,  and  asked  what  was  the  character  of  the  negotia 
tions.  He  was  told  that  the  preliminaries  of  the  treaty  were 
about  agreed  upon,  and  his  remonstrance  was  met  with  a  smile. 

"  '  Why,  Doctor,  you  have  come  too  late;  we  have  about 
traded  off  the  Northwest  coast  for  a  codfishery.' 

"  '  But,  Sir,  you  do  not  know  what  you  are  doing;  you  do  not 
realize  that  that  territory  you  mention  with  a  smile,  almost  a 
sneer,  could  make  a  home  for  millions;  that  its  broad  navigable 
rivers  lead  to  an  ocean  whose  commerce  includes  the  Indies  and 
the  Empires  of  the  Orient;  that  we  have  fine  harbors  and  broad 
bays  to  invite  that  commerce  thither  and  offer  an  anchorage  to 
the  navies  of  the  world.  Then  there  are  beautiful  and  fertile 
valleys,  whose  harvests  will  yield  eventually  an  increase  to  the 
nation's  wealth/ 

"  '  You  are  enthusiastic,  Doctor,7  answered  the  Secretary,  with 
an  easy  smile.  *  You  certainly  are  an  enthusiast.  The  reports 
that  come  to  us  from  Oregon  differ  materially  from  yours. 
The  central  portions  of  the  continent  are  a  barren  waste,  and 
the  waters  of  the  western  slope  course  through  a  mountain  wil 
derness  or  else  a  desert  shore.  The  mountaineer  can  hunt  and 
trap  there.  The  tourist  may  sketch  its  snow-capped  ridges,  and 
describe  the  Indian  in  his  native  haunts.  The  trapper  finds  a 
home  there.' 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  103 

"'Sir,  you  have  no  idea  of  the  land  you  sneer  at.  Oregon 
has  all  the  virtues  we  claim  for  it.  A  few  Americans  have 
gone  thither  to  develop  our  nation's  wealth.  We  are  far  off, 
but  our  hearts  are  with  the  nation  of  our  birth.  We  are 
pioneers,  and  can  it  be  possible  that  our  claims  will  be  ignored, 
—  that  our  country  can  consent  to  trade  off  her  territory  and  our 
allegiance  to  a  foreign  power  ?  ' 

"  Dr.  Whitman  did  not  rest  the  question  with  the  Secretary. 
He  visited  President  Tyler  himself,  and  left  no  stone  unturned 
until  he  had  awakened  an  interest  in  his  cause  in  the  minds  of 
the  President  and  a  portion  of  his  Cabinet,  and  a  due  considera 
tion  of  the  matter  induced  the  final  preservation  of  the  greater 
portion  of  the  Northwest  Territory  as  a  portion  of  the  National 
Domain." 

I  am  indebted  for  this  transcript  to  Mr.  William  I.  Marshall 
of  Chicago.  This  earliest  version  of  Whitman's  services  in 
behalf  of  Oregon  mainly  relates  to  incidents  of  which  no  living 
person  in  Oregon  in  1864  had  any  first-hand  knowledge.  The 
only  men  who  at  any  time  could  have  confirmed  or  denied  this 
story  of  their  own  knowledge  were  Daniel  Webster  and  Marcus 
Whitman.  Webster  had  been  dead  twelve  years  and  Whitman 
seventeen  years. 

As  a  newspaper  correspondent's  report  of  a  speech  which 
reproduced  the  substance  of  Mr.  Spalding's  oral  narration,  this 
version  of  Whitman's  work  for  Oregon  in  Washington  cannot, 
of  course,  be  pressed  for  details,  but  it  may  be  remarked  that 
there  is  no  mention  of  the  Walla  Walla  dinner,  and  that  the 
account  assumes  that  the  Ashburton  Treaty  was  still  unsigned 
in  1843,  and  bases  Whitman's  services  on  his  influence  in 
Washington.  It  also  makes  him  start  in  midwinter  instead  of 
early  in  October.  The  correspondent  also  explicitly  states  that 
to  his  knowledge  it  had  never  before  been  made  public.  If  this 
correspondent  found  no  one  in  that  Oregon  Assembly  who  had 
heard  of  it  before  1864,  this  year  can  safely  be  assumed  to  be  the 
date  of  its  first  revelation  by  Mr.  Spalding.  In  Myron  Eells* 
Did  Marcus  Whitman  Save  Oregon?  this  article  is  wrongly 
credited  to  the  Sacramento  Daily  Bulletin. 


104  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 


NOTE   C 

MR.  ELWOOD  EVANS'  SUMMARY  OP  HIS  CONCLUSIONS  IN  THE 
WHITMAN  CONTROVERSY  l 

"First,  Dr.  Whitman's  winter  journey  in  1842-43  had  no 
political  intent  or  significance  whatever. 

"  Second,  no  feeling  as  to  the  Oregon  boundary  controversy, 
or  desire  or  wish  to  defeat  British  to  the  territory  or  any  part  of 
it,  had  any  influence  in  actuating  such  a  journey. 

"  Third,  his  exclusive  purpose  was  to  secure  the  rescinding  by 
the  American  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  of  the  order  of  1841 
to  abandon  the  southern  stations  of  Waiilatpu  and  Lapwai. 

"Fourth,  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  visited  Washington 
City  during  the  spring  of  1843. 

"Fifth,  that  he  in  any  manner  whatever  or  in  the  remotest 
degree  stimulated  the  *  great  immigration  of  1843, '  is  as  unten 
able  as  the  political  claim  we  have  been  discussing.  Nor  would 
it  be  referred  to,  but  for  the  connection  that  American  occupancy 
of  the  territory  had  in  hastening  the  settlement  of  the  Oregon 
controversy.  Dr.  Whitman  left  Oregon  in  October,  1842,  and 
he  only  reached  St.  Louis  in  March,  1843.  No  opportunity 
had  ever  occurred  for  meeting  parties  who  could  be  influenced 
to  go  to  Oregon.  In  those  early  days  the  Oregon  immigration 
had  to  arrange  in  the  fall  of  the  preceding  year  for  the  next 
year's  great  journey.  Dr.  Whitman's  connection  with  that 
immigration  commenced  with  the  crossing  of  the  North  Platte 
Eiver  in  June,  where  he  overtook  the  train.  He  accompanied  it, 
and  rendered  valuable  service  as  a  physician  and  as  an  experi 
enced  traveller.  Escorted  by  it  to  Oregon,  though  in  no  respect 
whatever  a  factor  in  its  formation  or  progress,  perhaps  his  pres 
ence  contributed  greatly  to  its  successful  transcontinental 
march." 

1  The   Oregonian,  Portland,  Dec.  25,   1884.     Cited  from  Mowry'a  Marcus 
Whitman,  p.  112. 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  105 


NOTE  D 

Dr.  Mowry  prints  the  contemporary  newspaper  accounts  of 
the  visit  of  the  four  Flathead  Indians  to  St.  Louis.1  George 
Catlin  travelled  with  the  two  survivors  on  their  return  and 
painted  their  portraits.  He  writes :  "  These  two  men  were  part 
of  a  delegation  that  came  across  the  Eocky  Mountains  to  St. 
Louis  a  few  years  since  to  enquire  for  the  truth  of  a  representa 
tion  which  they  said  some  white  men  had  made  amongst  them, 
'  that  our  religion  was  better  than  theirs,  and  that  they  would 
all  be  lost  if  they  did  not  embrace  it. '  Two  old  men  of  this 
party  died  in  St.  Louis,  and  I  travelled  two  thousand  miles, 
companion  with  these  two  young  fellows,  towards  their  own 
country  and  became  much  pleased  with  their  manners  and  dis 
positions."2  This  is  probably  as  near  the  truth  in  regard  to 
this  mission  as  we  can  get,  for  the  contemporary  newspaper 
accounts  are  admittedly  exaggerated.  The  account  given  by 
Barrows  in  his  Oregon,  108-113,  is  an  imaginative  perversion 
of  these  newspaper  accounts.  Barrows  gives  the  farewell  speech 
of  one  of  the  Indians  which  has  been  reproduced  in  many  places,8 
but  never  with  any  references  which  properly  authenticate  it. 
The  nearest  to  an  authentication  of  it  that  I  have  been  able  to 
make  traces  it  to  Mr.  Spalding.  In  1870  he  reported  the  char 
acteristic  features  of  the  speech  to  a  writer  in  The  Chicago 
Advance,  who,  in  reproducing  it,  says :  "  The  survivor  repeated 
the  words  years  afterward  to  Mr.  Spalding."4  Dr.  Mowry 
confidently  asserts  that  the  speech  was  taken  down  as  it  was 
uttered  by  one  of  General  Clark's  clerks.  There  is  no  trace  of 
the  speech  in  the  contemporary  accounts  as  reproduced  in  Dr. 
Mowry's  book.  I  feel  pretty  certain  that  the  speech  was  in 
vented  by  Mr.  Spalding.  Until  it  can  be  carried  back  of  Mr. 
Spalding,  it  ought  not  to  be  continually  reprinted  as  an  authentic 
document. 

1  Marcus  Whitman,  37-44.    In  Lee  and  Frost's  Ten  Years  in  Oregon,  New 
York,  1844,  110-111,  the  original  account  in  the  Christian  Advocate  is  called 
"  high  wrought "  and  "  incorrect  statements." 

2  Catlin's  Illustrations  of  the  Manners,  Customs,  and  Condition  of  the  North 
American  Indians,  New  York,  1841,  II,  109. 

3  Barrows,  110-111.    Also  in  Mowry,  46. 
*  Exec.  Doc.  37,  8. 


106  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 


NOTE   E 

TRANSLATION  OF  THE  PASSAGE  FROM  DE  SAINT-AMANT  QUOTED 
ON  PP.  21-22 

"The  Keverend  Mr.  Whitman,  an  American  Baptist  mis 
sionary,  came  and  established  himself  with  his  family  among 
the  different  tribes  of  Whalla-Whalla  almost  in  the  midst  of  the 
wilderness.  He  gained  some  influence  over  the  Cayuse,  the 
Nez-Perces,  the  Spokanes,  etc.  Having  preceded  the  taking 
possession  of  the  country  by  his  fellow  citizens,  he  became  a 
very  active  agent  of  the  American  interests,  and  contributed  in 
no  small  degree  to  promote  annexation;  but  in  spite  of  all  he 
did  for  them,  he  did  not  realize  that  his  standing  and  influence 
would  not  always  prevail  against  the  consequences  of  the  super 
stition  of  these  savages,  and  he  fell  a  victim  to  ifc  with  his 
family.  An  epidemic  spread,  and  as  the  Eeverend  added  the 
art  of  healing  the  body  to  his  pretension  to  save  souls,  and  as 
several  shocking  deaths  disturbed  these  feeble  and  ailing  minds 
(which  occasionally  happens  among  civilized  people  to  our 
shame),  doubts  sprang  up  in  regard  to  the  honesty  of  Dr.  Whit 
man's  purposes,  and  still  more  in  regard  to  the  character  of  his 
medical  knowledge.  In  short,  he  was  massacred  with  all  his 
family  in  November,  1847." 

NOTE  F 


REPORT  OF  AN  INTERVIEW  WITH  MRS.  A.  L.  LOVE  JOY,  1899 

OR  1900 

"In  a  recent  conversation  with  Mrs.  Elizabeth  Lovejoy,  wife  of 
the  late  General  A.  L.  Lovejoy,  she  said :  — 

"  '  Mr.  Lovejoy  had  but  recently  reached  the  neighborhood  of 
Dr.  Whitman,  and  was  encamped  within  three  miles  of  his  place, 
in  company  with  Dr.  Elijah  White  and  others,  who  had  just 
crossed  the  plains,  and  were  on  their  way  to  the  Willamette 
Valley.  Dr.  Whitman  sent  a  messenger  to  Mr.  Lovejoy,  re- 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  107 

questing  him  to  call  at  his  place.  Dr.  Whitman  informed  Mr. 
Lovejoy  that  he  had  received  a  letter  from  "the  Board,"  express 
ing  dissatisfaction  with  his  mission;  that  it  was  making  so 
little  progress  that  the  Board  had  about  decided  to  discontinue 
it.  He  said  he  was  much  worried  about  it,  as  he  had  been  there 
so  long,  had  worked  so  hard,  and  was  so  deeply  interested  in  the 
work  that  it  would  be  very  hard  for  him  to  give  it  up;  that  he 
knew  that  Mr.  Lovejoy  had  influential  relatives  who  were  con 
nected  with  the  Board,  and  that  he  most  earnestly  wished  him 
to  go  to  Boston  with  him  to  use  his  influence  with  the  Board  to 
have  his  mission  continued.  Mr.  Lovejoy  said  that  he  was  a 
young  man,  just  starting  in  life;  that  he  had  not  means  to  spare 
for  such  a  trip,  and  would  rather  go  on  to  his  destination ;  but 
Dr.  Whitman  still  urged  him,  saying  that  it  should  not  cost  him 
anything,  that  he  had  a  letter  of  credit  that  would  get  him  all 
the  money  he  needed.  So,  finally,  Mr.  Lovejoy  consented  to 
go  upon  those  conditions.  They  left  Waiil-at-pu  on  the  3d  of 
October,  1842,  and  made  quick  time  to  Fort  Hall,  when  the 
doctor  turned  south  and  went  away  down  into  the  Spanish  coun 
try.  They  had  a  fearful  time,  came  near  freezing  and  starving 
to  death.  When  they  were  within  a  few  days'  travel  of  Bent's 
Fort,  on  the  head  waters  of  the  Arkansas  River,  they  met  some 
one,  who  informed  them  that  a  pack  train  was  about  ready  to 
start  to  St.  Louis.  Dr.  Whitman  immediately  made  up  his 
mind  to  take  the  strongest  animal  and  proceed  on,  and,  if  possi 
ble,  join  the  pack  train,  and  leave  Mr.  Lovejoy  to  take  care  of 
himself  and  the  broken-down  animals.  Mr.  Lovejoy  reminded 
the  doctor  of  their  agreement,  and  objected  to  being  left  in  that 
manner;  but  the  doctor  said  it  was  then  so  late,  near  the  1st  of 
January,  that  it  was  so  important  for  him  to  be  in  Boston  by 
a  given  time,  and,  besides,  he  did  not  feel  authorized  to  saddle 
such  an  expense  upon  the  Board.  When  Mr.  Lovejoy  finally 
reached  Fort  Bent,  about  the  4th  of  January,  he  found  that  Dr. 
Whitman  was  not  there,  and  had  not  been  heard  from.  The 
pack  train  had  just  left  the  fort  and  was  at  least  10  miles 
away.  Mr.  Lovejoy  explained  to  Captain  Sevier,  the  manager 
of  the  fort,  the  importance  of  the  doctor's  business,  whereupon 
the  Captain  dispatched  a  messenger  to  stop  and  detain  the  train 
until  the  doctor  could  reach  it.  Knowing  Dr.  Whitman  must 
be  lost,  Mr.  Lovejoy  and  others  from  the  fort  took  fresh  horses 


108  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

and  set  out  to  hunt  for  him.  After  two  days'  search  they  re 
turned  without  him;  but  the  doctor  came  in  soon  after  their 
arrival,  worn  out,  nearly  starved,  and  half -crazed  by  the  hard 
ship  and  excitement  of  being  so  long  lost.  Dr.  Whitman  left 
Fort  Bent  on  the  7th  day  of  January,  1843. '  " 

II 

LETTER  OP  D.  P.  THOMPSON 

PORTLAND,  OR.,  Feb.  6,  1900. 
HON.  P.  W.  GILLETTE. 

DEAR  SIR,  — From  early  in  the  '50s  until  1864,  I  was  much  in 
company  with  General  A.  L.  Lovejoy,  of  Oregon  City.  I  have 
very  often  heard  him  relate  the  incidents  of  the  trip  made  in  the 
fall  and  winter  of  1842  and  1843  from  the  Whitman  Mission  to 
Bent's  Fort,  on  the  head  waters  of  the  Arkansas  River,  in  com 
pany  with  Dr.  Marcus  Whitman.  The  emigration  of  the  fall  of 
1842,  headed  by  Dr.  Elijah  White,  and  with  whom  Mr.  Lovejoy 
also  came,  brought  letters  to  the  Oregon  people,  among  which 
were  letters  for  Dr.  Whitman,  informing  him  of  the  intention 
of  the  American  Board  of  Foreign  Missions  of  Boston  to  dis 
continue  the  missions  in  "the  Oregon  country."  When  Dr. 
Whitman  read  these  letters,  notwithstanding  the  lateness  of  the 
season,  he  at  once  decided  to  go  East  and  prevent  it,  if  possible. 
In  an  interview  with  Dr.  White  and  Mr.  Lovejoy,  they  tried 
to  dissuade  the  doctor  from  so  hazardous  a  trip ,  but  to  no  pur 
pose.  He  was  determined.  Mr.  Lovejoy,  who  at  that  time  was 
a  strong  young  man,  and  cared  little  where  he  went,  so  there 
was  a  field  of  adventure,  was  not  hard  to  persuade  to  accompany 
the  doctor.  Dr.  Whitman  was  anxious  to  have  Mr.  Lovejoy  go, 
as  he  was  from  Boston,  was  related  to  some  of  the  leading 
families  there  in  the  mission  work,  and  his  influence  through 
them  might  be  a  great  help  to  secure  the  continuation  of  the 
Oregon  missions.  So  it  was  decided  to  go  at  once.  They  had 
the  company  of  some  mountain  men  as  far  as  Fort  Hall,  which 
place  they  soon  reached.  Captain  Grant,  manager  of  the  Hud 
son's  Bay  Company  at  Fort  Hall,  tried  to  persuade  them  to 
abandon  the  journey,  on  account  of  the  lateness  of  the  season 
and  the  danger  from  the  hostile  Sioux  and  other  Indians,  but  to 


THE  LEGEND   OF  MARCUS   WHITMAN  109 

no  purpose.     They  started  south   and  went  down  through  the 
Spanish  country,  and  after  much   hardship  and   many   narrow 
escapes  reached  Bent's  Fort.     Their  horses  were   so  worn  out 
that  Dr.  Whitman  thought  it  best  to  go  on  with  a  pack  train  just 
starting  to  St.  Louis,  and  leave  Mr.  Lovejoy  there.     I  have  often 
heard  General  Lovejoy  speak  of  Dr.  Whitman  as  being  a  man  of  , 
most  indomitable  will,  and  no  discouragement  could  change  him 
when  once  his  mind  was  made  for  the  accomplishment  of  a  pur 
pose.     He   was  determined  to  save  the   Oregon   mission   from  j 
being  discontinued,  and  he  did  it;  but  afterward  lost  his  life  at  /' 
what  he  regarded  as  his  post  of  duty. 

D.  P.  THOMPSON. 

p.  S.  —  I  have  many  times  heard  General  Lovejoy  say  that  all 
of  those  statements  claiming  that  Dr.  Whitman  made  that 
winter  ride  to  "  save  Oregon "  was  nonsense  —  mere  bosh,  and 
wholly  untrue.  He  said  that  during  their  long  ride  the  doctor 
often  conversed  freely  with  him  on  the  object  of  his  visit,  and 
always  indicated  that  he  was  going  in  the  interest  of  his  mission, 
and  to  try  to  persuade  the  Board  to  keep  up  and  maintain  the 
Oregon  missions.  He  said  Dr.  Whitman  thought  the  Board  did 
not  understand  and  appreciate  the  importance  of  those  missions. 

D.  P.  T. 

These  two  extracts,  kindly  placed  at  my  disposal  by  Mr. 
William  I.  Marshall  of  Chicago,  are  from  an  article  entitled 
"Oregon's  Early  History, "published  in  the  Morning  Oregonian, 
Portland,  Or.,  Feb.  26,  1900,  by  P.  W.  Gillette.  Mr.  Gillette 
himself  had  the  conversation  with  Mrs.  Lovejoy. 


THE  AUTHORSHIP   OF   THE  FEDERALIST 


THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  FEDERALIST 

THE  FEDERALIST  is  universally  regarded  as  the  most  im 
portant  contribution  of  our  country  to  political  science,  and 
yet,  although  some  twenty-five  editions  of  it  have  been  pub 
lished,  the  authorship  of  twelve  important  numbers,  about 
one-seventh  of  the  whole,  is  still  undetermined,  and  in  the 
opinion  of  Mr.  Lodge,  the  latest  critical  editor,  must  remain 
so.  The  authorship  of  three  other  numbers,  18,  19,  and  20, 
earlier  in  dispute,  Mr.  Lodge  believes  to  be  satisfactorily 
settled.  The  remaining  twelve  numbers,  49-58,  62,  and  63,, 
are  attributed  to  Hamilton  in  the  so-called  Hamilton  lists, 
and  to  Madison  in  the  Madison  lists.  Madison  never 
wavered  in  the  assertion  that  he  was  the  author  of  them,  and 
although  the  Madison  lists  differ  from  each  other  in  regard 
to  a  few  other  numbers,  they  uniformly  assign  these  numbers 
to  Madison.  Mr.  Lodge,  although  the  weight  of  testimony 
is,  in  his  view,  favorable  to  Hamilton,  declares  that  he  "is 
not  even  yet  completely  satisfied  "  that  Nos.  49-58  are  not 
from  Madison's  pen.  In  regard  to  Nos.  62  and  63  he  has 
"very  little  doubt,"  thinking  they  both  belong  to  Hamilton.1 

Mr.  Lodge  concludes:  "No  one  is  entitled  to  assign  the 
disputed  numbers  to  either  Hamilton  or  Madison  with  abso 
lute  confidence.  They  were  surely  written  by  one  or  the 
other,  and  with  that  unsatisfactory  certainty  we  must  fain  be 
content." 

The  case,  in  brief,  is  one  where  the  external  evidence  is 
conflicting,  and  where,  hitherto,  conclusions  have  been 
reached  largely  in  accordance  with  the  predilections  of  the 

1  See  Lodge's  The  Federalist,  Introduction,  for  a  presentation  of  the  external 
evidence.  All  references  are  to  Lodge's  edition  unless  another  is  mentioned. 

S 


114  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

respective  admirers  of  the  two  claimants,  by  rejecting  as 
less  trustworthy  the  testimony  of  one  or  the  other  set  of  lists. 
For  example,  George  Bancroft l  is  as  sure  that  Madison  wrote 
the  numbers  as  John  C.  Hamilton  2  is  that  his  father  was  the 
author. 

In  such  a  juncture  the  obvious  step  is  to  call  in  a  new  set 
of  witnesses;  in  other  words,  to  examine  the  papers  them 
selves  for  internal  evidence  and  not  to  acquiesce  in  a  negative 
conclusion  until  every  resource  has  been  exhausted.  It  is 
hardly  likely  that  two  men  of  such  different  individualities  as 
Hamilton  and  Madison,  however  similar  their  political  expe 
rience,  and  however  sincerely  working  together  in  the  same 
cause,  could  write  extensively  in  its  behalf  without  their 
respective  contributions  bearing  some  mark  of  their  authors. 
Fixed  ideas,  pet  phrases,  habitual  modes  of  expression,  char 
acteristic  political  theories,  will  occur  again  and  again,  not 
only  in  the  essays  in  question,  but  elsewhere  in  the  works  of 
the  writers.  The  weight  of  such  evidence  is  cumulative. 
Every  additional  example  strengthens  one  side  and  propor 
tionally  weakens  the  other.  Internal  evidence  is  often  inad 
equate  to  determine  the  author  of  an  anonymous  work  when 
there  are  many  possibilities.  In  the  case  before  us  all  that  is 
required  of  it  is  to  turn  the  balance  decidedly  one  way  or  the 
other  between  two  even  contestants,  for  such  they  seem  to 
the  student  after  Mr.  Lodge's  discussion. 

In  fact  hardly  as  much  as  this  is  necessary,  for  the  case  was 
made  to  appear  an  even  one  by  unfairly  discrediting  Madi 
son's  testimony  as  compared  with  that  of  Hamilton.  With 
out  such  studied  disparagement  the  external  evidence  is  far 
stronger  for  Madison's  authorship.  Mr.  Lodge's  process  is 
a  curious  one  and  starts  with  rejecting  a  specific  statement 
of  Madison's  which  can  be  substantiated  beyond  any  doubt. 
In  the  Hamilton  lists,  he  writes,  there  are  "  two  errors  as  to 
two  numbers,  while  in  the  Madison  lists  there  are  twelve 
errors  as  to  six  numbers.  Tried,  therefore,  by  the  list  of 

1  History  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  II,  336. 

2  See  his  edition  of  The  Federalist. 


THE  AUTHORSHIP   OF  THE  FEDERALIST          115 

admitted  errors,  Hamilton's  authority  is  shown  to  be  six 
times  as  good  as  that  of  Madison."  Passing  by  the  crude- 
ness  of  this  method  of  expressing  relative  degrees  of  proba 
bility,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  eight  of  these  twelve  "errors  "  in 
the  Madison  lists  are  made  up  as  follows:  Nos.  18  and  19  are 
three  times,  and  No.  20  twice,  attributed  to  Madison  alone. 
These  "  errors  "  are  in  the  earlier  Madison  lists.  After  the 
publication  of  the  Hamilton  lists  which  attributed  Nos.  18, 
19,  and  20  to  "Madison  and  Hamilton  jointly,"  Madison  ex 
plained  the  discrepancy  in  a  note  to  No.  18  in  Gideon's  edi 
tion  of  1818.  "The  subject  of  this,"  he  writes,  "and  the 
following  numbers  happened  to  be  taken  up  by  both  Mr. 
Hamilton  and  Mr.  Madison.  What  had  been  prepared  by 
Mr.  Hamilton,  who  had  entered  more  briefly  into  the  subject, 
was  left  to  Mr.  Madison,  on  its  appearing  that  the  latter  was 
engaged  upon  it,  with  larger  materials,  and  with  a  view  to  a 
more  precise  delineation,  and  from  the  pen  of  the  latter  the 
several  papers  went  to  press." 

In  the  fuller  statement  of  Madison,  in  Bancroft's  History 
of  the  Constitution,  II,  837,  he  says:  "It  is  possible,  though 
not  recollected,  that  something  in  the  draught  [i.  e.,  Hamil 
ton's  draught]  may  have  been  incorporated  into  the  numbers 
as  printed.  But  it  was  certainly  not  of  a  nature  or  amount 
to  affect  the  impression  left  on  the  mind  of  J.  M.,  from 
whose  pen  the  numbers  went  to  the  press,  that  the  numbers 
were  of  the  class  written  by  him."  Then  follows  a  simple 
and  natural  explanation  of  how  Hamilton  might  have  re 
garded  them  as  joint  work.  Mr.  Lodge,  however,  without 
giving  this  explanation  of  the  facts,  says  that  Madison  in 
Gideon's  edition  of  1818  "concedes  18,  19,  and  20  to  be  the 
joint  work  of  Hamilton  and  himself."  With  all  respect  to 
Mr.  Lodge,  it  may  be  asserted  that  he  made  no  such  conces 
sion.  In  the  Gideon  editions  those  numbers  are  ascribed  to 
Madison  alone,  and  the  explanation  quoted  above  is  given  in 
a  footnote.  That  explanation  beyond  doubt  can  be  shown 
to  be  true  to  the  letter,  and  in  such  a  way  as  greatly  to 
increase  one's  confidence  in  Madison's  memory  and  his 


116  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

honesty.  The  "raw  material"  of  those  numbers,  with  the 
historical  references  exactly  given,  exists  in  Madison's  papers 
in  his  own  handwriting,  and  is  printed  in  his  Writings, 
Vol.  I,  293-314.  Take  No.  20,  for  example,  as  a  test  case. 
Fully  nine-tenths  of  it  is  drawn  from  Madison's  own  abstract 
of  Sir  William  Temple's  Observations  upon  the  United  Prov 
inces  and  of  Felice's  Code  de  I'Humanite.  This  can  be  veri 
fied  by  any  one  in  a  few  minutes  by  comparing  No.  20  with 
pp.  302-309  of  Madison's  Writings,  Vol.  I.  That  Madison 
should  assert  No.  20  as  his  own  was  natural  and  right;  that 
when  Hamilton's  assertion  of  joint  authorship  was  made 
public  he  should  explain  the  discrepancy  by  stating  the  facts 
was  also  natural ;  that  his  explanation  was  truthf u]  internal 
evidence  proves  beyond  a  doubt,  and  that  he  u conceded" 
No.  20  to  be  a  joint  work  in  any  common  acceptation  of  the 
term  is  without  foundation.  Sir  William  Temple's  claim  to  be 
recognized  as  joint  author  of  No.  20  is  far  stronger  than  Ham 
ilton's.  There  are  two  paragraphs  out  of  twenty-four  in 
No.  20  which  appear  to  have  come  from  Hamilton.  Most  of 
the  rest  is  from  Sir  William  Temple.  The  case  with  Nos.  18 
and  19  is  similar,  although  neither  is  drawn  from  so  few  sources 
as  No.  20;  in  each  there  is  a  possibility  of  a  larger  use  of 
Hamilton's  notes.  After  a  comparison  of  these  numbers  with 
Madison's  Notes  on  Confederacies,  no  editor  can  have  any 
excuse  for  assigning  these  numbers  to  "  Hamilton  and  Madi 
son,"  as  has  been  uniformly  done  by  Hamiltonian  editors 
since  1810.  It  should  at  least  read,  "  Madison  and  Hamil 
ton,"  although  there  seems  to  be  no  good  reason  why  the 
exact  and  truthful  course  of  the  Gideon  editions  should  not 
be  followed  in  the  future. 

It  will  hardly  be  denied  that  eight  of  the  twelve  "  errors  " 
of  the  Madison  lists  now  disappear,  and  we  have  then  four 
errors  in  regard  to  J$po  numbers  in  the  Madison  lists  as  com 
pared  with  Hamilton's  two  errors  in  regard  to  two  numbers. 

When  Mr.  Lodge  believed  Hamilton's  testimony  six  times 
as  good  as  Madison's, he  regarded  the  question  of  the  author 
ship  of  Nos.  49-58  as  almost  evenly  balanced  between  the 


THE  AUTHORSHIP   OF  THE  FEDERALIST         117 

two.  According  to  his  own  process  of  weighing  evidence, 
Hamilton's  authority  is  shown  at  most  to  be  only  twice  as 
good  as  Madison's,  and  perhaps  only  half  as  good.1  If  the 
scale  was  evenly  balanced  before,  it  must  turn  now,  for  the 
very  case  used  by  Mr.  Lodge  to  show  that  Madison's  testi 
mony  was  less  trustworthy  than  Hamilton's  memorandum, 
when  examined  in  the  light  of  Madison's  collected  material, 
proves  that  Madison's  statement  was  accurate  to  the  letter 
and  that  Hamilton's  rested  on  a  natural  misapprehension. 

Let  us  turn  now  to  the  more  difficult  problem  presented  by 
Nos.  49-58,  62,  and  63.  In  regard  to  the  series  49-58,  an 
ingenious  attempt  to  reconcile  Hamilton's  list  with  Madison's 
was  made  in  the  suggestion  that  as  Hamilton  made  a  mistake 
of  a  single  figure  in  attributing  54  to  Jay  instead  of  64,  it 
was  not  improbable  that  he  made  a  similar  mistake  in  the 
next  line  and  wrote  37-48  instead  of  37-58.2  The  value  of 
this  conjecture  must  depend  upon  the  tendency  of  the  inter 
nal  evidence. 

If  one  examines  the  structure  of  The  Federalist,  there 
seems  to  be  a  somewhat  systematic  division  of  labor  in  the 
preparation  of  its  parts.  Jay's  few  contributions  deal  with 
foreign  relations,  with  which  he  was  especially  conversant; 
three  distinctively  historical  papers,  like  18,  19,  and  20,  come 
from  Madison's  hand  because  his  studies  in  the  history  of 
federal  government  had  supplied  him  with  ampler  materials. 
With  these  exceptions,  all  of  the  first  part  of  The  Federalist, 
issued  originally  as  the  first  volume,  deals  with  general  ques 
tions  emphasizing  the  defects  of  the  Confederacy  and  the 
value  of  a  more  perfect  union,  and  of  these  papers  Hamilton 
wrote  all  but  two.  To  him  these  were  congenial  topics,  and 
he  could  throw  into  their  discussion  his  whole  force  without 
reserve.  As  the  originator  of  the  essays,  he  could  naturally 
choose  for  himself  the  particular  part  of  the  work  he  preferred 

1  Following  Mr.  Lodge's  example  we  might  count  Hamilton's  assertion  of 
joint  authorship  of  18,  19,  and  20  as  "errors/'  and  raise  his  numoer  of  "  errors" 
to  eight. 

2  See  The  Historical  Magazine,  VIII,  306. 


118  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

to  do,  and  request  his  collaborators  to  undertake  the  portions 
for  which  they  were  particularly  fitted.  It  is  not,  then,  with 
out  significance  that  in  the  opening  paragraph  of  No.  37,  the 
first  of  the  connected  Madison  papers,  it  is  said  that  the  plan 
of  the  writers  "cannot  be  complete  without  taking  a  more 
critical  and  thorough  survey  of  the  work  of  the  Convention, 
etc."  This  is  called  "the  remaining  task."  Madison  was  by 
far  the  most  competent  person  to  perform  the  "remaining 
task."  He  was  present  at  every  session  of  the  Convention 
and  did  more  than  any  one  else 'to  bring  it  to  a  successful 
issue.  Hamilton,  on  the  other  hand,  was  absent  from 
June  29  to  Aug.  13,  and  did  not  speak l  from  Aug.  13  to 
Sept.  6,  on  account  of  "his  dislike  of  the  scheme  of  gov 
ernment  in  general. "  2  If  Hamilton  refrained  from  participat 
ing  in  the  discussions  of  the  Convention  for  this  reason,  is  it 
not  altogether  probable  that  he  proposed  to  leave  to  Madison, 
as  far  as  practicable,  the  task  of  defending  the  details  of  the 
Constitution  ?  This  supposition  is  strengthened  by  the  fact 
that  Madison  had  evidently  formed  a  plan  of  treatment  for 
the  numbers  that  he  did  not  write.3 

His  work,  however,  was  cut  short  by  his  having  to  leave 
New  York  early  in  March  to  prepare  for  the  Virginia  Conven 
tion.  Nos.  49-58  appeared  between  Feb.  5  and  Feb.  22,  and 
are  closely  connected  in  subject-matter  with  the  preceding 
Madison  numbers.  Nos.  62  and  63  discuss  the  make-up  of 
the  Senate  and  logically  attach  themselves  to  No.  58,  which 
concludes  a  similar  treatment  of  the  House  of  Representa 
tives.  They  were  published  Feb.  29  and  March  7.  They 
could  have  been  written  by  Madison;  that  they  should  be 
was  in  accordance  with  the  apparent  plan  of  The  Federalist. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  seems  to  be  no  good  reason  why 
they  should  come  from  Hamilton  as  long  as  Madison  was  in 

1  He  could  not  vote,  as  both  Yates  and  Lansing  of  New  York  had  left  the 
Convention. 

2  Madison's  Debates,  Scott's  ed.,  671. 

3  After  he  left  New  York  he  wrote  at  least  once  to  Hamilton  in  regard  to  the 
later  course  of  The  Federalist.     April  3,  Hamilton  replies,  explaining  the  line  of 
argument  which  seemed  best  to  him.     Lodge's  Works  of  Hamilton,  VIII,  182. 


THE  AUTHORSHIP   OF  THE  FEDERALIST          119 

New  York.  The  approaching  departure,  however,  of  Madi 
son  toward  the  end  of  February,  compelled  Hamilton  to  take 
up  the  task  if  the  series  was  to  be  continued,  and  he  wrote 
Nos.  59-61,  on  the  control  of  the  Union  over  the  federal  elec 
tions,  three  numbers  that  could  have  come  after  62  and  63 
more  logically  than  before  them. 

These  considerations  make  it  somewhat  more  probable  that 
these  numbers  were  written  by  Madison  than  by  Hamilton, 
but  the  weight  of  the  probability  must  be  left  to  the  judg 
ment  of  the  reader. 

In  examining  the  internal  evidence,  limitations  of  space  as 
well  as  lack  of  indications  will  prevent  the  treatment  of  the 
numbers  with  equal  detail,  but  as  they  are  attributed  en  bloc 
to  either  Madison  or  Hamilton  by  most  of  the  lists,  satisfac 
tory  proof  that  any  two  or  three  of  them  were  written  by  one 
of  the  two  will  go  far  to  turn  the  scale  in  his  favor  for  the 
rest.  I  shall,  therefore,  present  the  evidence  as  fully  as  pos 
sible  in  regard  to  some  numbers,  and  only  the  most  striking 
indications  in  regard  to  the  rest. 

NUMBER  49. 

No.  49  continues  the  discussion  on  the  separation  of  the 
powers  begun  in  No.  48,  and  takes  for  special  considera 
tion  a  protective  device  proposed  by  Jefferson  in  his  Notes  on 
Virginia,  providing  for  any  two  departments  to  unite  in 
calling  a  convention  in  case  the  third  should  encroach  on  the 
Constitution. 

This  project  of  Jefferson's  was  known  to  Madison  in 
August,  1785. 1  By  May,  1786,  he  had  in  his  possession  a 
copy  of  the  privately  printed  edition  of  Jefferson's  Notes.2 
The  first  published  edition  of  the  Notes  came  out  in  London 
early  in  August,  1787, 3  and  it  was  from  this  edition  that 
Madison  quoted  in  the  preceding  number  of  The  Federalist 

1  Writings  of  James  Madison,  I,  183.     To  be  cited  as  Writings. 

2  Ibid.,  234. 

3  Ford's  Jefferson's  Works,  III,  79. 


120  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

(No.  48).  The  only  place  where  any  one  could  learn  of  this 
constitutional  device  of  Jefferson's  was  in  the  appendix  to 
some  of  the  editions  of  his  Notes.  Madison  had  known  of  it 
for  years  and  owned  two  of  these  editions  of  the  Notes.  A 
copy  of  Jefferson's  Notes  was  among  Hamilton's  possessions, 
but  it  was  the  Philadelphia  edition  of  1788, l  which  was  not 
published  until  Jan.  23,  1788,2  in  Philadelphia,  while  No.  49 
of  The  Federalist  was  printed  in  New  York,  Feb.  5. 

If  Hamilton  wrote  Nos.  49-58,  the  decision  that  Madison's 
contributions  for  the  present  should  cease  with  No.  48  must 
have  been  reached  at  least  some  days  earlier  than  Feb.  5, 
because  49  and  50  are  papers  based  on  some  research.  It 
is,  then,  while  not  impossible,  extremely  unlikely  that  a  book 
published  in  Philadelphia  not  earlier  than  Jan.  23  should 
have  reached  New  York  and  come  into  Hamilton's  possession 
soon  enough  for  him  to  select  from  it  the  text  for  the  first  of 
a  new  series  of  papers  which  appeared  Feb.  5.  On  the 
other  hand,  Madison  having  quoted  extensively  in  No.  48 
from  the  Notes,  nothing  would  be  more  natural  than  for  him 
to  discuss  Jefferson's  project,  thus  freshly  reminded  of  it. 

In  the  text  of  this  essay,  p.  314, 3  Jefferson's  device  is 
referred  to  "as  a  palladium  to  the  weaker  department  of 
power  against  the  invasion  of  the  stronger."  In  No.  43, 
p.  275,  Madison  writes :  "  Equality  of  suffrage  in  the  Senate 
was  probably  meant  as  a  palladium  to  the  residuary  sover 
eignty  of  the  States."  In  1792,  he  said  of  "the  partitions 
and  internal  checks  of  power"  that  "they  are  neither  the  sole 
or  the  chief  palladium  of  constitutional  liberty;  "4  and  in  his 
last  message  he  referred  to  the  Constitution  as  the  "palla 
dium"  of  the  American  people.5  I  have  not  noted  "palla- 

1  J.  C.  Hamilton,  The  Federalist,  cxi.     The  copy  was  in  Mr.  J.  C.  Hamilton's 
possession. 

2  It  is  first  announced  in  the  Pennsylvania  Packet  of  Jan.  25,  as  "  published 
this  day."     That  it  was  not  actually  on  the  market  for  a  few  days  is  not  unlikely, 
if  we  may  judge  from  the  practice  of  publishers  to-day. 

8  The  references  are  to  Lodge's  edition. 

4  Writings,  IV,  473. 

5  In  the  paragraph  before  the  last. 


THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  FEDERALIST         121 

dium  "  In  any  of  Hamilton's  writings  that  I  have  read.  The 
use  of  the  term  "constitutional  charter,"  p.  314,  is  common 
in  Madison,  e.g.  cf.  "The  citizens  of  the  United  States 
have  peculiar  motives  to  support  the  energy  of  their  constitu 
tional  charters,"  IV,  468  (1792);  "forced  constructions  of 
the  constitutional  charter,"  IV,  506  (1798),  IV,  520,  "as  laid 
down  in  the  constitutional  charter,"  IV,  391  (1835).  This 
expression  I  have  not  noted  in  Hamilton's  discussions.  The 
same  general  proposition  of  frequently  referring  constitu 
tional  questions  to  the  people  Madison  criticises  in  a  letter  to 
Jefferson  in  February,  1790.  The  similarity  of  the  criticism 
is  worth  noting  in  this  connection.  The  objections  in  No.  49 
are,  "  as  every  appeal  to  the  people  would  carry  an  implication 
of  some  defect  in  the  government,  frequent  appeals  would  in 
a  great  measure  deprive  the  government  of  that  veneration 
which  time  bestows  on  everything,  ...  in  every  nation 
the  most  rational  government  will  not  find  it  a  superfluous 
advantage  to  have  the  prejudices  of  the  community  on  its 
side,"  p.  315.  In  his  letter  to  Jefferson,  Madison  asks: 
"  Would  not  a  government  so  often  revised  become  too  un 
stable  and  novel  to  retain  that  share  of  prejudice  in  its  favor 
which  is  a  salutary  aid  to  the  most  rational  government?"1 

It  may  be  added  that  Chancellor  Kent  notes  that:  "Mr. 
Hamilton  told  me  that  Mr.  Madison  wrote  48  and  49,  or 
from  pa.  101  to  112  of  Vol.  2d."2  The  pages,  as  given,  show 
that  the  numbers  are  those  of  the  collected  editions  and  not 
the  original  numbers  as  printed  in  the  journals. 

NUMBER  50. 

This  number  discusses  the  propriety  of  periodical  instead 
of  occasional  appeals  to  the  people,  and  reviews  the  history 
of  the  Pennsylvania  Council  of  Censors,  of  1783-84.  In 
regard  to  this  institution  and  Jefferson's  scheme  criticised 
in  No.  49,  John  C.  Hamilton  writes:  "As  to  this,  as  well  as 
to  the  scheme  of  Jefferson,  an  analogy  in  Hamilton's  writings 

1  Madison's  Writings,  I,  504.  2  Dawson's  The  Federalist,  cxl. 


122 


ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 


—  for  the  same  reason,  that  no  such  project  had  come  before 
him  —  was  not  to  be  expected."1  The  question  naturally 
arises,  then,  "Why  should  Hamilton  select  this  unfamiliar 
topic  for  a  number  of  The  Federalist  f  "  To  Madison,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  project  was  familiar.  The  results  of  its  work 
form  the  subject  of  the  latter  part  of  No.  48,  and  he  had  dis 
cussed  this  Council  of  Censors  briefly  as  early  as  August, 
1785,  in  his  letter  to  John  Brown,  of  Kentucky.2 


NUMBER  51. 

In  No.  51  the  writer  continues  the  discussion  of  the  pre 
ceding  numbers  as  to  the  proper  means  "of  maintaining  in 
practice  the  necessary  partition  of  power  among  the  several 
departments."  This  line  of  thought  was  a  favorite  one  with 
Madison. 


Number  51. 

"  Second.  It  is  of  great  im 
portance  in  a  republic  not  only 
to  guard  the  society  against 
the  oppression  of  its  rulers, 
but  to  guard  one  part  of  the 
society  against  the  injustice  of 
the  other  part.  Different  in 
terests  necessarily  exist  in  dif 
ferent  classes  of  citizens.  If  a 
majority  be  united  by  a  com 
mon  interest,  the  rights  of  the 
minority  will  be  insecure." 
Cf.  Madison's  Notes  on  the 
Confederacy,  Writings,  I,  325- 
26,  April,  1787. 

"Whilst  all  authority  in  it 
will  be  derived  from  and  de- 


Madison. 

(Objects  of  the  Senate.) 
"  These  were,  —  first,  to  pro 
tect  the  people  against  their 
rulers,  secondly,  to  protect  the 
people  against  the  transient 
impressions  into  which  they 
themselves  might  be  led." 
Debates,  242.  (June  26.)  ... 
"as  different  interests  neces 
sarily  result  from  the  liberty 
secured,  the  major  interest 
might,  under  sudden  impulses, 
be  tempted  to  commit  injus 
tice  on  the  minority. "  Debates, 
ibid.  See  also  letter  to  Jeffer 
son  giving  an  account  of  the 
Convention,  Oct.  1787.  Writ 
ings,  I,  353. 


1  J.  C.  Hamilton's  edition  of  The  Federalist,  cxiii. 

2  Writings,  I,  183. 


THE  AUTHORSHIP   OF  THE  FEDERALIST 


123 


Number  51. 

pendent  on  the  society,  the 
society  itself  will  be  broken 
into  so  many  parts,  interests 
and  classes  of  citizens,  that  the 
rights  of  individuals,  or  of  the 
minority,  will  be  in  little  dan 
ger  from  interested  combina 
tions  of  the  majority  "  1  (pp. 
325-26). 

"In  a  free  government  the 
security  for  civil  rights  must 
be  the  same  as  that  for  relig 
ious  rights.  It  consists  in  the 
one  case  in  the  multiplicity  of 
interests,  and  in  the  other  in 
the  multiplicity  of  sects.  The 
degree  of  security  in  both  cases 
will  depend  on  the  number  of 
interests  and  sects;  and  this 
may  be  presumed  to  depend  on 
the  extent  of  country  and  num 
ber  of  people  comprehended 
under  the  same  government "  2 
(p.  326). 


Madison. 

"  The  Society  becomes  broken 
into  a  greater  variety  of  inter 
ests  and  pursuits  of  passions 
which  check  each  other." 
Writings,  I,  327,  from  Notes 
on  the  Confederacy,  April, 
1787. 

"The  only  remedy  is,  to 
enlarge  the  sphere,  and  thereby 
divide  the  community  into  so 
great  a  number  of  interests 
and  parties,  that  in  the  first 
place  a  majority  will  not  be 
likely  at  the  same  moment  to 
have  a  common  interest  sepa 
rate  from  the  whole."  Delates, 
119,  June  6,  1787.  "  In  a  large 
society  the  people  are  broken 
into  so  many  interests  and  par 
ties  that  a  common  sentiment 
is  less  likely  to  be  felt  and  the 
requisite  concert  less  likely  to 
be  formed  by  a  majority  of  the 
whole."  Letter  to  Jefferson, 
Oct.  24,  1787,  Writings,  I,  352. 

"The  same  security  seems 
requisite  for  the  civil  as  for 
the  religious  rights  of  individ 
uals.  If  the  same  sect  form  a 
majority,  and  have  the  power, 
other  sects  will  be  sure  to  be 
depressed.  Divide  et  impera 
is,  under  certain  qualifications, 


1  Madison  uses  the  phrase  "  interested  combinations  of  the  majority,"  in  Writ 
ings,  IV,  23,  1829,  and  the  phrase  "interested  majority*'  in  The  Federalist,  59. 

2  Cf.  also  Madison's  remarks  in  the  Virginia  Convention.     "  But  the  United 
States  abound  in  such  a  variety  of  sects  that  it  is  a  strong  security  against  re 
ligious  persecution."    Elliot's  Debates,  III,  330. 


124  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

Number  51.  Madison. 


"This  view  of  the  subject 
shows  that  in  the  exact  pro 
portion  as  the  territory  of  the 
Union  may  be  formed  into  more 
circumscribed  Confederacies,  or 
States,  oppressive  combina 
tions  of  a  majority  will  be 
facilitated." 

"  In  the  extended  republic  of 
the  United  States,  and  among 
the  great  variety  of  interests, 
parties  and  sects  which  it 
embraces,  a  coalition  of  a  ma 
jority  of  the  whole  society 
could  seldom  take  place  on 
any  other  principles  than  those 
of  justice  and  the  general 
good." 


"It  is  no  less  certain  than  ib 
is  important,  notwithstanding 
the  contrary  opinions  which 


the  only  policy  by  which  a  re 
public  can  be  administered  on 
just  principle."  Letter  to 
Jefferson,  Writings,  I,  352-53, 
Oct.  24,  1787. 

"  It  may  be  inferred  that 
the  inconveniences  of  popular 
States,  contrary  to  the  prevail 
ing  Theory,  are  in  proportion 
not  to  the  extent,  but  to  the 
narrowness  of  their  limits." 
Notes  on  the  Confederacy, 
Writings,  I,  327,  April,  1787. 
"As  in  too  small  a  sphere 
oppressive  combinations  may 
be  too  easily  formed  against  the 
weaker  party,  so,"  etc.  Let 
ter  to  Jefferson,  Oct.  24,  1787. 
"In  the  extended  republic  of 
the  United  States,"  .  .  . 
"greater  variety  of  interests 
and  pursuits  of  passions,"  for 
the  rest  see  above,  p.  123. 
"  The  only  remedy  is  to  enlarge 
the  sphere,  and  thereby  divide 
the  community  into  so  great  a 
number  of  interests  and  parties 
that,  in  the  first  place,  a  ma 
jority  will  not  be  likely  at  the 
same  moment  to  have  a  com 
mon  interest  separate  from 
that  of  the  whole  or  of  the 
minority."  Debates,  p.  119, 
(June  6). 

"  It  was  incumbent  upon  us, 
then,  to  try  this  remedy,  and 
with  that  view  to  frame  a  re- 


THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  FEDERALIST         125 

Number  51.  Madison. 

have    been    entertained,    that  publican    system    on    such    a 

the  larger  the  society,  provided  scale  and  in  such  a  form  as  will 

it  lie  within  a  practical  sphere,  control  all  the  evils  which  have 

the  more  duly  capable  it  will  been   experienced."      Debates, 

be  of  self-government."  *  p.  119. 

The  five  numbers,  47-51,  form  a  continuous  discussion, 
complete  in  itself,  of  the  true  meaning  of  the  maxim  of  the 
separation  of  the  powers,  its  applicability  to  the  United 
States,  etc.  Madison's  right  to  be  regarded  as  the  author  of 
the  first  two  has  never  been  disputed.  The  evidence  that  he 
also  wrote  No.  51  has  been  laid  before  the  reader.  It  seems 
to  me  to  establish  the  proof  of  his  authorship  as  certainly  as 
an  undisputed  assertion  could.  The  evidence  in  the  case  of 
Nos.  49  and  50  is  confirmatory.  The  significance  of  this 
evidence  can  be  fairly  weighed  only  by  a  comparison  of  it 
with  that  which  has  been  put  forward  in  behalf  of  Hamilton 
in  J.  C.  Hamilton's  edition  of  The  Federalist,  pp.  cx-cxv,2 
and  for  No.  51  on  p.  cxiv. 

The  next  group  of  essays,  Nos.  52-58,  take  up  in  detail 
the  structure  of  the  House  of  Representatives  as  framed  by 
the  Constitution.  The  internal  evidence  in  regard  to  the 
authorship  of  these  numbers,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to 
detect  it,  is  much  less  in  amount.  Some  of  it,  however,  is 
striking. 

Number  52.  Madison. 

"The  definition  of  the  right  "The    right   of    suffrage   is 

of  suffrage   is  very   justly  re-  certainly  one  of  the  fundamen- 

garded  as  a  fundamental  arti-  tal  articles  of  republican  gov- 

cle  of  republican  government,  ernment,  and  ought  not  to  be 

It  was  incumbent  on  the  con-  left  to    be    regulated    by   the 

vention,  therefore,  to  define  and  Legislature."     Debates,  p.  470, 

1  Cf.  Madison  in  Federalist,  No.  10,  60. 

2  It  is  but  fair  to  J.  C.  Hamilton  to  remember  that  when  he  made  his  argu 
ment  in  favor  of  Hamilton's  authorship  Madison's  Writings  had  not  been  pub 
lished.     He  had  examined  some  of  them  in  MS.,  but  not  thoroughly  enough. 


126  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

Number  52.  Madison. 


establish  this  right  in  the  Con 
stitution.  To  have  left  it  open 
for  the  occasional  regulation  of 
the  Congress  would  have  been 
improper  for  the  reason  just 
mentioned"  (pp.  327-28). 


Aug.  7  (Hamilton  was  absent 
at  that  time). 


NUMBER  53. 
Subject:  Frequency  of  Elections. 


Number  53. 

In  support  of  biennial  elec 
tions  it  is  urged  that  time  will 
be  necessary  for  the  legislator 
to  gain  "a  certain  degree  of 
knowledge  of  the  subjects  on 
which  he  is  to  legislate  "  (p. 
335). 

"Some  knowledge  of  the 
affairs,  and  even  of  the  laws  of 
all  the  States,  ought  to  be  pos 
sessed  by  the  members  from 
each  of  the  States  "  (p.  336). 

"The  distance  which  many 
of  the  representatives  will  be 
obliged  to  travel,  and  the  ar 
rangements  rendered  necessary 
by  that  circumstance,  might  be 
much  more  serious  objections 
with  fit  men  to  this  service  if 
limited  to  a  single  year  than  if 
extended  to  two  years  "  (p. 
338). 


Madison. 

"  Three  years  will  be  neces 
sary,  in  a  government  so  ex 
tensive,  for  members  to  form 
any  knowledge  of  the  various 
interests  of  the  States  to  which 
they  do  not  belong,  and  of 
which  they  can  know  but  little, 
from  the  situation  and  affairs 
of  their  own ;  one  year  will  be 
almost  consumed  in  preparing 
for  and  traveling  to  and  from 
the  seat  of  national  business." 
Debates,  June  12,  p.  151. 

Madison  argued  that  annual 
elections  would  be  extremely 
inconvenient  for  the  represent 
atives.  "They  would  have  to 
travel  seven  or  eight  hundred 
miles  from  the  distant  parts  of 
the  Union."  Debates,  June  21, 
p.  216. 


The  amount  of  evidence  in  regard  to  No.  53  is  not  great, 
but  this  is  to  be  noted  in  regard  to  its  character.  Two  of  the 
most  important  arguments  in  No.  53  for  biennial  rather  than 


Of  THE 

UNIVERSITY 


THE  AUTHORSHIP   OF  THE  FEDERALIST         127 

annual  elections  are  arguments  advanced  by  Madison  in  the 
Convention  in  favor  of  triennial  elections.  Hamilton  partici 
pated  in  the  discussion,  June  21  (p.  217).  Like  Madison, 
he  favored  triennial  elections.  Of  the  five  points  that  he 
made  in  his  speech,  not  one  is  mentioned  in  No.  53.  If  Ham 
ilton  wrote  No.  53  he  did  not  repeat  a  single  one  of  five  argu 
ments  which  seemed  good  to  him  six  months  before,  but 
devoted  himself  to  an  elaboration  of  the  points  made  by 
Madison.  It  may  be  remarked  in  addition  that  one  of  the  so- 
called  Hamilton  lists,  that  of  Chancellor  Kent,  attributes 
No.  53  to  Madison. 

NUMBER  54. 

As  additional  bits  of  external  evidence,  not  recorded  by 
previous  writers,  it  may  be  remarked  that  Madison  in  a  letter, 
in  1819,  casually  referred  to  No.  54  as  expressing  his  views, 
thus  implying  that  he  wrote  it;1  and  that  in  the  Virginia 
Constitutional  Convention  of  1829  he  publicly  asserted  his 
authorship  of  the  number.2 

Again,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  Hamilton,  in  the  Benson  list 
and  in  the  list  copied  at  his  own  request  by  J.  C.  Hamilton, 
did  not  claim  No.  54  for  himself,  but  assigned  it  to  Jay.3 

1  "  For  the  grounds  on  which  three-fifths  of  the  slaves  were  admitted  into  ratio 
of  representation,  I  will,  with  your  permission,  save  trouble  by  referring  to  No.  54 
of  The  Federalist."     Letter  to  Kobert  Walsh,  Nov.  27,  1819.    Writings,  IV,  154. 

2  "  Mr.  Madison  then  rose  and  said  that,  although  he  was  not  desirous  to  take 
part  in  this  discussion,  yet  under  all  the  circumstances  he  was,  perhaps,  called  on 
to  state,  that  the  paper  in  question  was  not  written  by  Mr.  Hamilton,  or  Mr.  Jay, 
but  by  the  third  person  connected  with  that  work."     Debates  of  the  Virginia  State 
Convention,  1829-30,  188. 

8  J.  C.  Hamilton's  edition,  xcvii.  In  the  1810  edition,  the  first  in  which  the 
authorship  of  the  individual  numbers  was  indicated,  the  Benson  list  is  followed, 
except  in  the  one  particular,  that  No.  54  was  assigned  to  Hamilton  and  not  to 
Jay.  No.  64,  also,  is  assigned  to  Hamilton.  As  the  assignments  in  this  edi 
tion  were  from  a  private  memorandum  in  his  own  [i.  e.,  Hamilton's]  handwriting, 
Mr.  Lodge  conjectured  that  possibly  there  might  have  been  still  another  list  "  of 
which  nothing  is  now  known."  This  conjecture  is  established  by  the  statement 
of  Mr.  Charles  Fenton  Mercer  in  the  Virginia  Convention  of  1829  in  regard  to 
the  authorship  of  No.  54.  Mr.  Mercer  said :  "  This  volume,  the  third  of  an 
edition  of  Hamilton's  works,  the  editor  of  which,  he  supposed,  had  obtained  his 


128  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

It  may  be  said,  of  course,  that  he  intended  in  that  list  to  write 
64,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  he  did  not  assign  54  to  himself, 
and  whether  he  intended  to  write  64  is  open  to  most  serious 
doubt.  In  the  last  number  of  the  Camillus  papers,  1794, l  he 
quotes  from  Nos.  42  and  64  of  The  Federalist  and  appends 
this  note :  "  It  is  generally  understood  that  two  persons  were 
concerned  in  the  writing  of  these  papers,  who,  from  having 
been  members  of  the  Convention,  had  a  good  opportunity  of 
knowing  its  views  —  and  were  under  no  temptation  at  that 
time  in  this  particular  to  misrepresent  them."  If  Hamilton, 
in  1794,  remembered  that  Jay 2  wrote  No.  64,  this  note  was 
highly  disingenuous ;  but  there  is  no  reason  to  suspect  Hamil 
ton  of  such  disingenuousness.  Therefore  in  1794  Hamilton 
attributed  64  either  to  himself  or  to  Madison.3  That  he 
attributed  it  to  himself  is  made  practically  certain  by  his  not 
attributing  it  to  Madison  in  the  Benson  list.  It  seems  fair  to 
conclude,  therefore,  that  in  attributing  54  to  Jay  in  that  list 
and  the  list  copied  by  J.  C.  Hamilton,  Hamilton  did  not 
make  a  mere  clerical  error,  but  consciously  disclaimed  writ 
ing  54. 

This  number  consists  of  a  defence  of  the  compromise  over 
the  question  whether  slaves  were  population  or  property, 
by  which  it  was  settled  that  three-fifths  of  the  slaves  should 
be  enumerated  in  determining  the  representative  population. 
For  rhetorical  purposes  the  argument  is  put  in  the  mouth  of 
a  Southerner.  That  the  writer  was  familiar  with  the  discus 
sion  in  the  Convention  seems  almost  certain  from  the  turn 
he  gives  to  his  argument,  but  Hamilton  was  absent  from  the 
Convention  during  the  repeated  discussions  of  this  compro 
mise,  while  Madison  was  there  and  participated  in  them. 

For  example,  Mr.  Patterson  of  New  Jersey,  in  the  Con- 
key  to  the  names  of  the  authors  of  Publius  from  a  manuscript  of  Mr.  Hamilton 
which  he  saw  many  years  ago,  in  the  possession  of  the  late  Richard  Stockton,  ail 
eminent  statesman  of  New  Jersey."  Virginia  Debates,  1829-30,  188. 

1  Works,  V,  320-21. 

2  Jay  was  not  a  member  of  the  Convention. 

3  That  Hamilton  did  at  one  time  attribute  No.  64  to  himself  seems  clear  from, 
the  1810  edition. 


THE  AUTHORSHIP   OF  THE  FEDERALIST         129 

vention,  raised  this  objection:  "Has  a  man  in  Virginia  a 
number  of  votes  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  his  slaves  ? 
and  if  negroes  are  not  represented  in  the  States  to  which  they 
belong,  why  should  they  be  represented  in  the  general  gov 
ernment?"  (Delates,  p.  314.) 

This  was  not  one  of  the  common  criticisms,  and  the  follow 
ing  passage  in  No.  54  seems  like  a  distinct  echo  of  it :  "  It 
may  be  replied,  perhaps,  that  slaves  are  not  included  in  the 
estimate  of  representatives  in  any  of  the  States  possessing 
them.  They  neither  vote  themselves  nor  increase  the  votes 
of  their  masters.  Upon  what  principle,  then,  ought  they  to 
be  taken  into  the  federal  estimate  of  representation?  "  (Fed.) 
p.  341). 

Number  54-  Madison. 

"  We  have  hitherto  (i.  e.  in  "  In  a  general  view  I  see  m> 
this  defense)  proceeded  on  the  reason  why  the  rights  of  prop- 
idea  that  representation  related  erty,  which  chiefly  bears  the 
to  persons  only,  and  not  at  all  burden  of  Government  and  is. 
to  property.  But  is  it  a  just  so  much  an  object  of  legisla- 
idea?  Government  is  insti-  tion,  should  not  be  respected 
tuted  no  less  for  protection  of  as  much  as  personal  rights  in 
the  property,  than  of  the  per-  the  choice  of  liulers."  (Writ- 
sous,  of  individuals"  (p.  342).  ings,  I,  181.  Letter  to  John 

Brown,  Aug.  23,  1785.)  "This, 
middle  course  reconciles  the 
two  cardinal  objects  of  govern 
ment,  the  rights  of  persons  and 
the  rights  of  property."  Ibid., 
187. 

The  evidence  in  regard  to  the  next  four  numbers  is  scanty 
and  ambiguous.  They  take  up  questions  which  Madison  did 
not  discuss  in  his  letters  and  speeches  in  much  detail,  and 
which  Hamilton  did  discuss  in  the  New  York  Convention. 
The  questions,  too,  were  the  most  obvious  ones  concerning 
the  constitution  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  the 
arguments  advanced  in  these  four  numbers  cover  the  ground 


130  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

pretty  completely.  Therefore  if  Madison  wrote  them  Hamil 
ton  could  hardly  have  gone  over  these  questions  without  using 
some  of  these  arguments.  They  would  be  familiar  to  him 
from  his  recent  proof  reading  of  the  second  volume  of  The 
Federalist  published  in  May.  That  he  did  use  arguments 
in  his  speeches  in  the  New  York  Convention  contained  in 
Madison's  numbers  renders  it  a  probable  hypothesis  that  he 
might  have  done  so  more  extensively.  Chancellor  Kent  re 
marked  upon  the  similarity  between  the  argument  of  the 
speeches  and  of  TJie  Federalist.  Such  a  use  of  arguments  first 
drawn  up  by  Madison  could  hardly  have  been  avoided  and 
would  have  been  perfectly  legitimate.  Campaign  material 
once  published  is  regarded  as  common  property  for  other 
advocates  to  use.  In  fact,  if  the  external  testimony  on  both 
sides  were  not  substantially  in  agreement  in  assigning  the  ten 
essays  to  either  one  or  the  other  in  a  body,  and  if  Hamilton's 
speeches  in  the  New  York  Convention  had  antedated  these 
numbers,  the  internal  evidence  would  have  pointed  to  Ham 
ilton  as  their  probable  author.  Since,  however,  his  speeches 
were  later  than  these  essays,  the  internal  evidence  must  be 
ambiguous. 

NUMBER  55. 

The  subject  of  this  essay  is  the  ratio  of  representation; 
Hamilton  was  absent  from  the  Convention  while  the  subjects 
of  Nos.  55  and  56  were  under  discussion. 

Number  55.  Madison. 

11  The  ratio  between  the  rep-  "  The  representatives  must 

resentatives  and  the  people  be  raised  to  a  certain  number 

ought  not  to  be  same  where  in  order  to  guard  against  the 

the  latter  are  very  numerous  as  cabals  of  a  few.  .  .  .  They 

where  they  are  very  few."  must  be  limited  to  a  certain 

"...  The  truth  is,  that  in  all  number  in  order  to  guard 

cases  a  certain  number  at  least  against  the  confusion  of  a 

seems  to  be  necessary  to  secure  multitude."  Federalist,  p.  57. 
the  benefits  of  free  consultation  "I  agree  that  after  going 


THE  AUTHORSHIP   OF  THE  FEDERALIST         131 
Number  55.  Madison. 

and  discussion,  and  to   guard  beyond    a  certain    point,    the 

against  too  easy  a  combination  number  may  be  inconvenient; 

for  improper  purposes ;  as,  on  ...  but  it  is  necessary  to  go  to 

the   other    hand,    the   number  a  certain  number  in   order  to 

ought     at     most    to    be    kept  secure  the  great  objects  of  rep- 

within  a  certain  limit  in  order  resentation.    Numerous  bodies 

to  avoid  the  confusion  and  in-  are  undoubtedly  liable  to  some 

temperance  of  a  multitude.    In  objections,  but  they  have  their 

all  very  numerous  assemblies,  advantages   also;    if  they   are 

of    whatever     character    com-  exposed  to  passion  and  fermen- 

posed,  passion  never  fails  to  tation,    they   are   less    subject 

wrest  the  sceptre  from  reason,"  to   venality    and    corruption." 

pp.    346-47.        (Of.    No.    49,  Register   of  Debates,    II,    185 

"The  passions,  therefore,  not  (Aug.  14,  1789). 
the  reason,  of  the  public  would 
sit  in  judgment,"  p.  318.) 

No,  55  does  not  refer  to  the  prospects  of  the  rapid  enlarge 
ment  of  the  House  by  the  accession  of  new  States,  a  fact 
which  Hamilton  emphasized  in  meeting  the  objections  that 
the  House  was  too  small.1  It  had  been  urged  that  the  Presi 
dent  would  corrupt  now  the  Senate  and  now  the  House. 
The  reply  in  No.  55  is  that  the  Constitution  has  rendered  the 
members  of  Congress  ineligible  "  to  any  civil  offices  that  may 
be  created,  or  of  which  the  emoluments  may  be  increased 
during  the  term  of  their  election,"  p.  350.  Hamilton  met  this 
argument  by  asserting  that  there  would  be  at  the  President's 
disposal  few  offices  "  whose  respectability  can  in  any  measure 
balance  that  of  the  office  of  Senator."  I,  466. 

NUMBEE  56. 

The  subject  of  this  paper  is  that  the  House  will  be  "  too 
small  to  possess  a  due  knowledge  of  the  interests  of  its  con 
stituents,"  p.  350.  In  No.  35  (by  Hamilton),  published  Jan. 
8,  in  discussing  taxation,  the  writer  says  in  regard  to  this 

1  Works,  I,  426. 


132  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

objection  to  the  powers  of  the  House :  "  I  reserve  for  another 
place  the  discussion  of  the  question  which  relates  to  the  suffi 
ciency  of  the  representative  body  in  respect  to  numbers," 
p.  203.  This  passage,  occurring  in  the  next  to  last  essay  before 
Madison,  was  to  discuss  the  actual  work  of  the  Convention, 
falls  in  line  with  my  conjecture  that  the  whole  of  the  discus 
sion  of  the  Constitution  and  its  fitness  to  American  condi 
tions  was  originally  assigned  to  Madison. 

To  meet  the  objection  that  the  representatives  would  not 
have  adequate  knowledge,  the  writer  of  No.  56  says :  — 

Number  56.  Madison. 

"Divide  the  largest  state  In  the  Virginia  Convention 
into  ten  or  twelve  districts,  Madison  said :  "  Could  not  ten 
and  it  will  be  found  that  there  intelligent  men  chosen  from 
will  be  no  peculiar  interests  ten  districts  from  this  State 
in  either  which  will  not  be  lay  direct  taxes  on  a  few  objects 
within  the  knowledge  of  the  in  the  most  judicious  manner? 
representative  of  the  district "  Can  any  one  divide  this  State 
(pp.  351-52).  into  ten  districts  so  as  not  to 

contain  men  of  sufficient  infor 
mation?"     Elliot,  III,  253-54. 

Hamilton,  in  the  New  York  Convention,  said:  "The 
natural  and  proper  method  of  holding  elections  will  be  to 
divide  the  State  into  districts  in  proportion  to  the  number  to 
be  elected.  This  State  will  consequently  be  divided  at  first 
into  six.  One  man  from  each  district  will  probably  possess 
all  the  knowledge  the  gentlemen  can  desire."  (Elliot,  I,  434.) 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  Constitution  assigned  in 
the  beginning  ten  representatives  to  Virginia  and  six  to  New 
York.  Hamilton,  in  the  New  York  Convention,  illustrates 
the  adequacy  of  the  representation  by  supposing  the  division 
of  the  State  into  six  districts,  and  Madison  does  the  same  in 
the  Virginia  Convention  by  supposing  Virginia  to  be  divided 
into  ten  districts.  The  writer  of  No.  56,  in  addressing  the 
people  of  New  York,  supposes  the  largest  State  divided  into 
ten  districts,  etc.  If  Hamilton  wrote  56,  why  should  he  take 


THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  FEDERALIST         133 

Virginia  as  an  example  in  February  and  New  York  in  July  ? 
He  might  do  so,  of  course,  but  there  is  a  certain  natural 
ness  in  a  Virginian  taking  the  largest  State  —  his  own  State 
—  as  the  extreme  example,  even  though  addressing  New 
Yorkers,  while  the  most  natural  example  for  a  New  Yorker, 
as  well  as  the  most  directly  pertinent,  would  be  New  York. 

Both  Hamilton  and  Madison  remarked  upon  the  assistance 
that  would  be  derived  from  State  systems  of  taxation,  etc. 
The  writer  of  56  says,  after  a  similar  remark:  "A  skilful 
individual  in  his  closet  with  all  the  local  codes  before  him 
might  compile  a  law  on  some  subject  of  taxation  for  the 
whole  Union,"  p.  352.  Madison,  in  No.  37,  refers  to  the 
lack  in  the  Constitution  of  "  the  symmetry  which  an  abstract 
view  of  the  subject  might  lead  an  ingenious  theorist  to  bestow 
on  Constitution  planned  in  his  closet  or  in  his  imagination," 
p.  221.  The  writer  of  53  (Madison?)  says,  "some  portion  of 
this  knowledge  may  no  doubt  be  acquired  in  a  man's  closet," 
p.  337.  The  closing  paragraph  of  No.  56  cites  the  experience 
of  Great  Britain,  "which  presents  to  mankind  so  many  polit 
ical  lessons,  both  of  the  monitory  and  exemplary  kind " 
(p.  354).  "Monitory"  is  almost  a  favorite  word  with 
Madison.  I  have  noted  the  following  instances :  "  Monitory 
examples,"  III,  244;  "monitory  reflection,"  IV,  334;  "In 
structed  by  these  monitory  lessons,"  IV,  424;  and,  in  The 
Federalist,  No.  20,  p.  118,  "this  melancholy  and  monitory 
lesson  of  history."  In  referring  to  the  experience  of  Great 
Britain  the  writer  cites  Burgh's  Political  Disquisitions. 
Madison  was  reading  Burgh  just  about  this  time,  for  in  his 
"  Additional  Memorandum  for  the  Convention  of  Virginia  in 
1788,  on  the  Federal  Constitution,"  he  quotes  Burgh  on  the 
union  between  England  and  Scotland.  ( Writings,  I,  392,  note 
b.)  I  have  met  with  no  reference  to  Burgh  in  Hamilton's 
writings. 

NUMBER  57. 

No.  57  deals  with  the  charge  that  the  "  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  "  will  be  taken  from  that  class  of  citizens  which 


134 


ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 


will  have  least  sympathy  with  the  mass  of  the  people,  and  be 
most  likely  to  aim  at  an  ambitious  sacrifice  of  the  many  to 
the  aggradizement  of  the  few,"  p.  355.  This  objection,  which 
the  writer  styles  "perhaps  the  most  extraordinary"  of  "all 
the  objections  which  have  been  framed  against  the  federal 
Constitution,"  was  prominently  in  Madison's  mind  at  this 
time  (Feb.  19).  A  fortnight  earlier  he  sent  Washington  a 
copy  of  a  letter  from  Rufus  King,  which  announced  that 
"distrust  of  men  of  property  or  education"  was  having  a 
more  powerful  influence  in  Massachusetts  "  than  any  specific 
objections  against  the  Constitution."  I,  372.  No.  57  goes 
over  ground  covered  in  part  by  No.  52  (Feb.  8),  and  it  may 
be  conjectured  that  the  evident  strength  of  this  objection 
invited  a  special  essay,  and  the  argument  at  first  adheres 
rather  closely  to  the  form  of  the  objection  as  it  appears  in 
Madison's  letter  of  the  same  date  to  Jefferson  on  the  nature 
of  the  opposition  in  Massachusetts. 


Number  57. 

"  Who  are  to  be  the  electors 
of  the  federal  representatives? 
Not  the  rich  more  than  the 
poor;  not  the  learned  more 
than  the  ignorant;  not  the 
haughty  heirs  of  distinguished 
names  more  than  the  humble 
sons  of  obscurity  and  unpropi- 
tious  fortune "  (p.  356) ;  and 
again,  "  Who  are  to  be  the  ob 
jects  of  popular  choice?  Every 
citizen  whose  merit  may  recom 
mend  him  to  the  esteem  and 
confidence  of  his  country.  No 
qualification  of  wealth,  of 
birth,  of  religious  faith  or  of 
civil  profession  is  permitted  to 
fetter  the  judgment  or  disap- 


Madison. 

The  opposition  in  Massachu 
setts  was  made  up  "partly  of 
ignorant  and  jealous  men  who 
had  been  taught,  or  had  fan 
cied  that  the  Convention  at 
Philadelphia  had  entered  into 
a  conspiracy  against  the  liber 
ties  of  the  people  at  large,  in 
order  to  erect  an  aristocracy 
for  the  rich,  the  well  born,  and 
the  men  of  education."  Writ- 
ings,  I,  377.  (Letter  to  Jeffer 
son,  Feb.  19.) 


THE  AUTHORSHIP   OF  THE  FEDERALIST 


185 


Number  57. 

point    the   inclination  of    the 
people7'  (p.  356.) 

"  The  aim  of  every  political 
constitution  is,  or  ought  to  be, 
first  to  obtain  for  rulers  men 
who  possess  most  wisdom  to 
discern  and  most  virtue  to  pur 
sue  the  common  good  of  the 
society"  (p.  356). 


"No  person  is  eligible  (in 
Great  Britain)  as  a  representa 
tive  of  a  county  unless  he 
possess  real  estate  of  the  clear 
value  of  six  hundred  pounds 
sterling  per  year;  nor  of  a  city 
or  borough,  unless  he  possess  a 
like  estate  of  half  that  annual 
value"  (p.  360). 


Madison. 


"The  objects  to  be  aimed  at 
were  to  fill  all  offices  with  the 
fittest  characters,  and  to  draw 
the  wisest  and  most  worthy 
citizens  into  the  legislative 
service."  Debates,  226.  "a 
body,  in  the  government  suffi 
ciently  respectable  for  its  wis 
dom  and  virtue."  Ibid.,  243. 

"  In  Great  Britain  no  one  can 
be  elected  to  represent  a  county 
without  having  an  estate  of  the 
value  of  six  hundred  pounds 
sterling  a  year;  nor  to  repre 
sent  a  corporation  without  an 
annual  estate  of  three  hundred 
pounds."  Virginia  Debates, 
Elliot,  III,  395. 


The  form  of  this  statement  in  No.  57  corresponds  so  closely 
with  that  of  Burgh  I,  350  and  II,  271,  that  it  seems  altogether 
probable  that  it  was  drawn  from  that  source  like  the  similar 
material  on  p.  354.  As  was  before  remarked,  Madison  was 
studying  Burgh  at  this  time. 


NUMBER  58. 

No.  58  combats  the  objection  that  the  House  will  not  be 
increased  in  size  as  the  population  grows.  Hamilton  dis 
cussed  the  same  question  in  the  New  York  Convention,  I, 
426,  in  a  similar  way.  Like  the  author  of  No.  58,  he  remarks 
that  the  large  States  will  control  the  House  and  consequently 
will  favor  augmentations  of  its  numbers  still  further  to 
increase  their  effective  influence.  An  additional  argument  is 
presented  in  No.  58,  to  which  there  is  nothing  similar  in 


136  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

Hamilton's  speech.  It  is  that  the  new  States,  although  small 
at  first,  will  "  be  gained  over  to  the  just  views  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  by  an  expedient  too  obvious  to  be  overlooked. 
As  these  States  will,  for  a  great  length  of  time,  advance  in 
population  with  peculiar  rapidity,  they  will  be  interested  in 
frequent  reapportionments  of  the  representatives  to  the  num 
ber  of  inhabitants."  So  the  large  States  in  the  House  can 
join  forces  with  the  new  States  in  the  Senate  "to  make  reap 
portionments  and  augmentations  "at  the  same  time,  p.  364. 

Madison  wrote  Jefferson  in  a  somewhat  similar  vein  in 
March,  1787,  on  changing  "the  principle  of  Representation  in 
the  federal  system  "  from  one  of  equality  to  one  proportioned 
to  population.  "  A  majority  of  the  states  conceive  that  they 
will  be  the  gainers  by  it.  It  is  recommended  to  the  Eastern 
States  by  the  actual  superiority  of  their  populousness,  and  to 
the  Southern  by  their  expected  superiority;  and  if  a  majority 
of  the  larger  states  concur,  the  fewer  and  smaller  states  must 
finally  bend  to  them,"  I,  286.  On  p.  365  of  this  number 
occurs  a  favorite  expression  of  Madison's.  The  author  sees 
in  the  history  of  England  "  an  infant  and  humble  representa 
tion  of  the  people  gradually  enlarging  the  sphere  of  its  activity 
and  importance."  Compare  "to  enlarge  the  sphere  as  far  as 
the  nature  of  the  government  would  admit,"  Debates,  118; 
"the  only  remedy  is,  to  enlarge  the  sphere,"  Ibid.,  119;  "an 
enlargement  of  the  sphere,"  I,  327;  "the  Federal  principle 
which  enlarges  the  sphere,"  IV,  21;  "enlarging  the  sphere," 
IV,  327  and  328;  "enlarge  the  sphere  of  liberty,"  IV,  483; 
" enlargement  of  the  sphere,"  Debates,  528;  "extending  the 
sphere,"  Federalist,  309;  " extend  the  sphere, "  Federalist,  58. 
Hamilton  uses  "extending  the  sphere,"  in  Federalist,  48, 
and  "enlargement  of  the  orbit,"  p.  47,  but  the  metaphor  is  by 
no  means  as  common  as  with  Madison,  and  the  exact  phrase 
"  enlarge  the  sphere  "  I  have  not  noted  in  Hamilton. 

The  final  paragraph  of  this  number  seems  like  an  echo  of  a 
discussion  in  the  Convention,  Aug.  10.  The  subject  is  the 
proper  quorum  for  the  House,  and  there  is  noticeable  simi 
larity  of  language.  As  against  a  quorum  larger  than  a  ma- 


THE  AUTHORSHIP   OF  THE  FEDERALIST         137 


jority,  it  was  urged  in  the  Convention  that  it  would  tempt 
the  minority  "to  extort,  by  threatening  a  secession,  some 
unjust  and  selfish  measure."  Delates,  p.  498.  This  clas 
sical  use  of  the  word  "secession  "  occurs  five  times  in  the  dis 
cussion  in  three  pages.  It  is  therefore  a  plausible  conjecture 
that  the  use  of  the  phrases  "  extort  unreasonable  indulgences  " 
and  "the  baneful  practice  of  secession"  (p.  368)  suggested 
itself  to  the  writer  of  58  in  discussing  this  question,  on 
account  of  the  association  of  ideas.  Hamilton  was  not  present 
at  this  discussion. 

No.  62  continues  directly  the  discussion  in  58  on  the  char 
acter  and  utility  of  the  two  houses  of  Congress. 

Number  62.  Madison. 

"...  it  will  be  proper  to 
take  a  view  of  the  ends  to  be 
served  by  it'7  [-i.  e. ,  a  Senate]. 
Debates,  241. 

"  A  people  deliberating  .  .  . 
on  the  plan  of  government  most 
likely  to  secure  their  happi 
ness,  would  first  be  aware  that 
those  charged  with  the  public 
happiness  might  betray  their 
trust."  Debates,  242. 

"  An  obvious  precaution 
against  this  danger  would  be 
to  divide  the  trust  between 
different  bodies  of  men,  who 
might  watch  and  check  each 
other."  Debates,  ibid. 

"Another  reflection  .  .  . 
would  be  that  they  themselves, 
as  well  as  a  numerous  body  of 
representatives,  were  liable  to 
err  also  from  fickleness  and 


"...  it  will  be  proper  to 
inquire  into  the  purposes  which 
are  to  be  answered  by  a  Senate  " 
(p.  387). 

"  It  is  a  misfortune  incident 
to  republican  government, 
though  in  a  less  degree  than 
to  other  governments,  that 
those  who  administer  it  may 
forget  their  obligations  to  their 
constituents  and  prove  unfaith 
ful  to  their  important  trust" 
(p.  387). 

"In  this  point  of  view,  a 
senate  as  a  second  branch  of 
the  legislative  assembly,  dis 
tinct  from  and  dividing  the 
power  with  a  first,  must  be  in 
all  cases  a  salutary  check  on 
the  government"  (ibid.). 

"The  necessity  of  a  senate 
is  not  less  indicated  by  the 
propensity  of  all  single  and 
numerous  assemblies  to  yield 
to  the  impulse  of  sudden  and 


passion."     Debates,  ibid. 

"  The  use  of  the  Senate  is  to 
consist  in  its  proceeding  with 


138 


ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 


Number  62. 

violent  passions,  and  to  be 
seduced  by  factious  leaders  into 
intemperate  and  pernicious 
resolutions"  (pp.  387-88). 


"...  a  body  which  is  to 
correct  this  infirmity  ought 
itself  to  be  free  from  it,  and 
consequently  ought  to  be  less 
numerous"  (p.  388). 


"  It  ought,  moreover,  to  pos 
sess  great  firmness,  and  con 
sequently  ought  to  hold  its 
authority  by  a  tenure  of  con 
siderable  duration"  (p.  388). 


"Another  defect  to  be  sup 
plied  by  a  senate  lies  in  a  want 
of  due  acquaintance  with  the 
objects  and  principles  of  legis 
lation.  It  is  not  possible  that 
an  assembly  of  men  called  for 
the  most  part  from  pursuits  of 
a  private  nature,  continued  in 
appointment  for  a  short  time 
and  led  by  no  permanent  motive 
to  devote  the  intervals  of  pub 
lic  occupation  to  a  study  of  the 
laws,  the  affairs,  and  the  com 
prehensive  interests  of  their 
country,  should,  if  wholly  left 
to  themselves,  escape  a  variety 
of  important  errors  in  the  exer- 


Madison. 

more  coolness,  with  more  sys 
tem,  and  with  more  wisdom, 
than  the  popular  branch.  En 
large  their  number,  and  you 
communicate  to  them  the  vices 
which  they  are  meant  to  cor 
rect."  Debates,  126. 

"A  necessary  fence  against 
this  danger  would  be  to  select 
a  portion  of  enlightened  citi 
zens  whose  limited  number  and 
firmness  may  seasonably  inter 
pose  against  impetuous  coun 
cils."  Debates,  242. 

"The  members  (of  the  Sen 
ate)  ought  therefore  to  derive 
a  firmness  from  the  tenure  of 
their  places."  Remarks  on 
Jefferson's  Draught  of  a  Con 
stitution  for  Virginia,  Writ 
ings,  I,  185. 

"  It  would  next  occur  to  such 
a  people  that  they  themselves 
were  liable  to  temporary  errors, 
through  want  of  information 
as  to  their  true  interest;  and 
that  men  chosen  for  a  short 
time,  and  employed  but  a  small 
portion  of  that  in  public  affairs, 
might  err  from  the  same  cause." 
Debates,  242. 

"It  [the  Senate]  ought  to 
supply  the  defect  of  knowledge 
and  experience  incident  to  the 
other  branch;  there  ought  to 
be  time  given,  therefore,  for 
attaining  the  qualifications 
necessary  for  that  purpose." 


THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  FEDERALIST         139 


Number  62. 

else  of  their  legislative  trust " 
(p.  388). 

"What,  indeed,  are  all  the 
repealing,  explaining,  and 
amending  laws  which  fill  and 
disgrace  our  voluminous  codes, 
but  so  many  monuments  of 
deficient  wisdom;  .  .  .  so 
many  admonitions  to  the  people 
of  the  value  of  those  aids 
which  may  be  expected  from  a 
well-constituted  Senate?"  (p. 
388). 


"A  good  government  im 
plies  two  things :  first,  fidelity 
to  the  object  of  government, 
which  is  the  happiness  of  the 
people;  secondly,  a  knowledge 
of  the  means  by  which  that 
object  can  be  best  attained. 
Some  governments  are  deficient 
in  both  these  qualities;  most 
governments  are  deficient  in 
the  first.  I  scruple  not  to 
assert  that  in  American  gov 
ernments  too  little  attention 
has  been  paid  to  the  last" 
(p.  389). 

"From  this  change  of  men 
must  proceed  a  change  of  opin 
ions;  and  from  a  change  of 
opinions  a  change  of  meas 
ures"  (p.  389). 


Madison. 

Kemarks  on  Jefferson's 
Draught,  Writings,  I,  185. 

"Try  the  codes  of  the  sev 
eral  states  by  this  test,  and 
what  a  luxuriancy  of  legisla 
tion  do  they  present.  ...  A 
review  of  the  several  codes  will 
show  that  every  necessary  and 
useful  part  of  the  least  volu 
minous  of  them  might  be  com 
pressed  into  one-tenth  of  the 
compass  and  at  the  same  time 
be  tenfold  as  perspicuous." 
Notes  on  the  Confederacy, 
April,  1787,  Writings,  I,  324. 

"  The  want  of  fidelity  in  the 
administration  of  powers  hav 
ing  been  the  grievance  felt 
under  most  governments,  and 
by  the  American  States  them 
selves  under  the  British  govern 
ment,  it  was  natural  for  them 
to  give  too  exclusive  an  atten 
tion  to  this  primary  attribute," 
Letter  to  John  Brown,  August, 
1785,  Writings,  I,  177. 

"  A  frequent  change  of  men 
will  result  from  a  frequent 
return  of  elections ;  and  a  fre 
quent  change  of  measures  from 
a  frequent  change  of  men." 
No.  37  of  The  Federalist, 
p.  218. 


"The  internal   effects  of    a         Cf.  par.  1  above,  also  what 
mutable  policy  are  still   more      follows  it   on   "mutability   of 


140 


ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 


Number  62. 

calamitous.  It  poisons  1  the 
blessings  of  liberty  itself.  It 
will  be  of  little  avail  to  the 
people  that  the  laws  are  made 
by  men  of  their  own  choice,  if 
the  laws  be  so  voluminous  that 
they  cannot  be  read,  or  so 
incoherent  that  they  cannot  be 
understood ;  if  they  be  repealed 
or  revised  before  they  are  pro 
mulgated,  or  undergo  such 
incessant  changes  that  no  man, 
who  knows  what  the  law  is  to 
day,  can  guess  what  it  will  be 
to-morrow"  (p.  340). 


"Another  effect  of  public 
instability  is  the  unreasonable 
advantage  it  gives  to  the  saga 
cious,  the  enterprising,  and  the 
moneyed  few  over  the  indus 
trious  and  uninformed  mass  of 
people.  Every  new  regulation 
concerning  commerce  or  reve 
nue,  or  in  any  manner  affecting 
the  value  of  the  different  spe 
cies  of  property,  presents  a 
new  harvest  to  those  who  watch 
the  change,  and  can  trace  its 
consequences." 

"But  the  most  deplorable 
effect  of  all  is  that  diminution 
of  attachment  and  reverence 
which  steals  into  the  hearts  of 


Madison. 

laws : "  "  This  evil  is  inti 
mately  connected  with  the 
former,  yet  deserves  a  distinct 
notice,  as  it  emphatically  de 
notes  a  vicious  legislation. 
We  daily  see  laws  repealed  or 
superseded  before  any  trial  can 
have  been  made  of  their  merits, 
and  even  before  a  knowledge  of 
them  can  have  reached  the 
remoter  districts  within  which 
they  were  to  operate."  Notes 
on  the  Confederacy,  April, 
1787,  Writings,  I,  324. 

"  In  the  regulations  of  trade, 
this  instability  becomes  a  snare 
not  only  to  our  own  citizens, 
but  to  foreigners  also,"  ibid. 

"  The  sober  people  of  Amer 
ica  .  .  .  have  seen  with  regret 
and  indignation  that  sudden 
changes  and  legislative  inter 
ferences,  in  cases  affecting 
personal  rights,  become  jobs  in 
the  hands  of  enterprising  and 
influential  speculators,  and 
snares  to  the  more  industrious 
and  less  informed  part  of  the 
community."  The  Federalist, 
No.  44,  278. 


"By  correcting  the  infirmi 
ties  of  popular  government,  it 
will  prevent  that  disgust 
against  that  form  which  may 


1  A  favorite  metaphor  with  Madison.     Cf.  The  Federalist,  81  and  286 ;  also 
Writings,  II,  126  and  600  ;  III,  360,  and  IV,  206. 


THE  AUTHORSHIP   OF  THE  FEDERALIST         141 

Number  62.  Madison. 

the  people  towards  a  political     otherwise    produce    a    sudden 


system  which  betrays  so  many 
marks  of  infirmity  and  disap 
points  so  many  of  their  natter 
ing  hopes  "  1  (p.  391). 


transition  to  some  very  differ 
ent  one.  .  .  .  The  real  danger 
to  republican  liberty  has  lurked 
in  that  cause."  Remarks  on 
Jefferson's  Draught,  Writings, 
I,  185-86. 


NUMBER  63. 


Number  63. 


Madison. 


The  first  topic  is  the  need 
of  a  due  sense  of  national 
character. 

"Yet  however  requisite  a 
sense  of  national  character 
may  be,  it  is  evident  that  it 
can  never  be  sufficiently  pos 
sessed  by  a  numerous  and 
changeable  body.  It  can  only 
be  found  in  a  number  so  small 
that  a  sensible  degree  of  the 
praise  and  blame  of  public 
measures  may  be  the  portion 
of  each  individual;2  or  in  an 
assembly  so  durably  invested 
with  public  trust,  that  the 
pride  and  consequence  of  its 
members  may  be  sensibly  in 
corporated  with  the  reputation 
and  prosperity  of  the  com 
munity.  The  half-yearly  rep 
resentatives  of  Ehode  Island 
would  probably  have  been  little 


Motives  restraining  a  major 
ity  from  injustice. 

"  Secondly.  Respect  for 
character.  However  strong 
this  motive  may  be  in  individ 
uals,  it  is  considered  as  very 
insufficient  to  restrain  them 
from  injustice.  In  a  multitude 
its  efficacy  is  diminished  in  pro 
portion  to  the  number  which 
is  to  share  the  praise  and  the 
blame.2  Besides,  as  it  has 
reference  to  public  opinion, 
which,  within  a  particular 
society,  is  the  opinion  of  the 
majority,  the  standard  is  fixed 
by  those  whose  conduct  is  to 
be  measured  by  it.  The  public 
opinion  without  the  society 
will  be  little  respected  by  the 
people  at  large  of  any  country. 
Individuals  of  extended  views 
and  of  national  pride  may  bring 


1  Cf.  Letter  to  Edmund  Pendleton,  Feb.  24,  1787,  Writings,  I,  230;  cf.  also 
325,  333,  350,  and  445,  and  The  Federalist,  56,  for  similar  expressions  of  the  same 
idea. 

2  "  Respect  for  character  is  always  diminished  in  proportion  to  the  number 
among  whom  the  blame  or  praise  is  to  be  divided."     Madison,  Debates,  118. 


142 


ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 


Number  63. 

affected  in  their  deliberations 
on  the  iniquitous  measures  of 
that  State,  by  arguments  drawn 
from  the  light  in  which  such 
measures  would  be  viewed  by 
foreign  nations  or  even  by  the 
sister  states  "  (p.  392). 


"...  such  an  institution 
may  be  sometimes  necessary  as 
a  defence  to  the  people  against 
their  own  temporary  errors  and 
delusions"  (p.  393). 

"  It  may  be  suggested  that  a 
people  spread  over  an  extensive 
region  cannot,  like  the  crowded 
inhabitants  of  a  small  district, 
be  subject  to  the  infection  of 
violent  passions,  or  to  the 
danger  of  combining  in  pursuit 
of  unjust  measures"  (p.  394). 
The  writer  makes  a  cross 
reference  to  No.  10  [by  Madi 
son]  for  an  elaboration  of  this 
theory. 

The  Senates  of  Sparta,  Eome, 
and  Carthage. 

"In  each  of  the  two  first 
there  was  a  senate  for  life" 
(p.  394). 


Madison. 

the  public  proceedings  to  this 
standard,  but  the  example  will 
never  be  followed  by  the  mul 
titude.  Is  it  to  be  imagined 
that  an  ordinary  citizen  or  even 
Assembly  man  of  Ehode  Island, 
in  estimating  the  policy  or 
paper,  ever  considered  or  cared 
in  what  light  the  measure 
would  be  viewed  in  France  or 
Holland,  or  even  in  Massa 
chusetts  or  Connecticut?" 
Notes  on  the  Confederacy, 
April,  1787,  Writings,  I,  326. 

"  It  would  next  occur  to  such 
a  people,  that  they  themselves 
were  liable  to  temporary 
errors."  Debates,  242. 

"  It  may  be  inferred  that  the 
inconveniences  of  popular 
states,  contrary  to  the  pre 
vailing  theory,  are  in  propor 
tion,  not  to  the  extent,  but  to 
the  narrowness  of  their  limits." 
Notes  on  the  Confederacy, 
Writings,  I,  327.  Cf.  also 
The  Federalist, 'No.  10,  p.  58. 

"Sparta. 

2  Kings, 
28  senators, 
Senate.     I.    For  life." 
Additional  Memorandum  for 
the  Convention  of  Virginia  in 
1788  on  the  Federal  Constitu 
tion.      Writings,  I,  394. 


THE  AUTHORSHIP   OF  THE  FEDERALIST 


143 


Carthage. 

"...  a  smaller  council, 
drawn  out  of  the  senate " 
(p.  395). 

"Lastly  in  Sparta  we  meet 
with  the  Ephori,  and  in  Borne 
with  the  Tribunes,  two  bodies, 
small  indeed  in  numbers,  but 
annually  elected  by  the  whole 
body  of  the  people  "  (p.  396). 

"...  liberty  may  be  endan 
gered  by  the  abuses  of  liberty, 
as  well  as  by  the  abuses  of 
power:  .  .  .  and  that  the  for 
mer,  rather  than  the  latter, 
are  apparently  most  to  be 
apprehended  by  the  United 
States"  (p.  397). 


"In  Sparta,  the  Ephori,  the 
annual  representatives  of  the 
people,  were  found  an  over 
match  for  the  senate  for  life, 
continually  gained  on  its  au 
thority  and  finally  drew  all 
power  into  their  own  hands  " 
(p.  399). 

"To  these  examples  might 
be  added  that  of  Carthage, 
whose  Senate,  according  to  the 
testimony  of  Polybius,1  instead 
of  drawing  all  power  into  its 


Carthage. 

"Senate  .  .  .  must  have 
been  great  since  the  100  drawn 
out  of  it."  Ibid.,  395. 

Sparta. 

"  Ephori,  chosen  annually 
by  the  people,"  etc.  Addi 
tional  Memorandum,  etc.,  I, 
394. 

"  It  is  of  infinite  importance 
to  the  cause  of  liberty  to  ascer 
tain  the  degree  of  it  which 
will  consist  with  the  purposes 
of  the  society.  An  error  on 
one  side  may  be  as  fatal  as  on 
the  other.  Hitherto,  the  error 
in  the  United  States  has  lain 
in  the  excess."  Letter  to 
Mazzei,  Dec.  10,  1788,  Writ 
ings,  I,  445. 

"  Ephori,  chosen  annually 
by  the  people  and  concurred 
in  their  behalf  with  kings  and 
Senate,  over  both  of  whom 
they  had  authority.  They 
...  in  fine,  directed  every 
thing."  Additional  Mem., 
Writings,  I,  394. 

Carthage. 

"  Whilst  Senate  retained  its 
authority,  says  Polybius,1  wis 
dom  and  success  marked  every 
thing.  People  at  first  gave 


1  I  have  not  noticed  any  reference  to  Polybius  in  Hamilton.    Besides  the  pas 
sage  above,  Madison  quotes  Polybius  in  Writings,  I,  298,  347. 


144  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

Carthage.  Carthage. 

vortex,1  had  at  the  commence-  way  to  Senate;  at  length,  in- 
ment  of  the  second  Punic  War  toxicated  by  wealth  and  con- 
lost  almost  the  whole  of  its  quests,  they  assumed  all 
original  portion"  (p.  399).  power."  Additional  Mem., 

1788,    Writings,  I,  399. 

The  evidence  in  favor  of  Madison's  authorship  of  Nos.  62 
and  63  is,  it  seems  to  me,  absolutely  decisive.  Jay's  author 
ship  of  No.  64  was  finally  established  by  finding  a  draft  of  the 
essay  in  his  papers.  It  will  hardly  be  denied  that  a  consider 
able  part  of  Nos.  62  and  63  has  been  found  in  Madison's  writ 
ings.  The  evidence  in  regard  to  Nos.  51  and  53  is  also 
convincing;  and  that  in  the  case  of  the  others  is  confirma 
tory.  The  value  of  the  evidence  can  be  best  appreciated  by 
comparing  it  with  that  advanced  in  Hamilton's  favor  by  his 
son.2  It  will  also  be  remembered,  in  view  of  the  direct  con 
flict  of  testimony  between  Hamilton  and  Madison,  that  it  is  a 
question  of  memory  and  not  of  veracity.  If  the  conjecture 
referred  to  on  p.  117  be  regarded  with  favor,  that  is,  that 
Hamilton,  in  haste  and  agitation,  wrote  "  37  to  48  inclusive 
by  M."  instead  of  "37  to  58,"  then  his  error  in  regard  to 
Nos.  62  and  63  could  easily  be  accounted  for.  He  would  in 
any  case  recollect  the  salient  fact  that  he  again  took  up  the 
writing  of  the  essays  because  Madison  had  to  go  to  Virginia. 
Madison  left  New  York  March  4.  Nos.  59,  60,  and  61,  by 
Hamilton,  were  published  Feb.  22  and  26.  Hamilton  might 
easily  forget  that  Madison  contributed  two  papers  after  he 
himself  had  begun  to  write  again,  just  as  he  unquestionably 
did  forget  that  Jay  contributed  No.  64  at  that  same  time. 
That  Hamilton's  memory  was  at  fault  where  his  list  differed 
from  Madison's  seems  to  have  been  the  final  conclusion  of  an 
exceptionally  competent  and  friendly  critic.  Chancellor 
Kent,  of  New  York,  who  was  not  only  a  friend  of  Hamil- 

1  A  favorite  metaphor  with  Madison.     I  have  not  noticed  it  in  Hamilton's 
writings.     For  other  examples  in  Madison's  works,  see  Federalist,  309 ;  Debates, 
372  and  399,  and  Writings,  II,  465,  and  III,  246. 

2  See  J.  C.  Hamilton's  edition  of  The  Federalist,  cx.-cxxxii. 


THE  AUTHORSHIP   OF  THE  FEDERALIST         145 

ton's,  but  had  listened  to  him  in  the  New  York  Convention, 
and  many  times  later  in  court,  received  from  him  once  in 
Albany  the  assurance  that  the  designation  of  the  authorship 
of  The  Federalist  in  his  possession  was  correct.  Later, 
Chancellor  Kent  pasted  a  copy  of  the  Washington  Gazette  list 
in  his  copy  of  The  Federalist  on  a  fly  leaf  opposite  the  Hamil 
ton  list,  and  added:  "Memr.  I  have  no  doubt  Mr.  Jay 
wrote  No.  64  on  the  Treaty  Power.  He  made  a  speech  on 
that  subject  in  the  N.  Y.  Convention,  and  I  am  told  he  says 
he  wrote  it.  I  suspect,  therefore,  from  internal  Evidence] 
the  above  to  be  the  correct  List,  and  not  the  one  on  the 
opposite  Page."1  The  Washington  G-azette  list  coincides 
with  Madison's  own  list  except  in  regard  to  Nos.  17,  20,  and 
21.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  Chancellor  Kent,  in  spite  of  Ham 
ilton's  assurance  in  regard  to  Nos.  50,  51,  52,  54-58,  62,  and 
63, 2  was  led  by  the  weight  of  internal  evidence  to  suspect 
that  the  Madison  lists  assigned  the  authorship  correctly. 
This  change  took  place  before  the  publication  of  Madison's 
Writings  and  perhaps  before  the  publication  of  the  Journal  or 
the  Debates.  Such  a  change  by  one  who  was  a  friend  of 
Hamilton  and  a  careful  student  of  The  Federalist,  as  well  as 
a  great  lawyer,  is  significant. 

1  Dawson's  The  Federalist,  cxl.-cxli. ;  J.  C.  Hamilton's  edition,  cxii,  note. 

2  His  Hamilton  list  assigned  49  and  53  to  Madison. 


10 


THE  AUTHORSHIP  OF  THE  FEDERALIST: 

A  EEVIEW  OF  ME.   PAUL  LEICESTER  FOED'S 
AEGUMENT 


THE  AUTHOESHIP  OF  THE  FEDERALIST: 

A  REVIEW  OF  ME.   PAUL  LEICESTER  FORD'S 
ARGUMENT 

IN  the  Introduction  to  his  edition  of  The  Federalist1  Mr. 
Paul  Leicester  Ford  offers  a  different  solution  from  the  one 
reached  in  the  foregoing  essay,  and  the  method  employed  is 
also  different.  His  conclusion  is  at  variance  with  all  the 
lists,  while  mine  is  in  accord  with  Madison's  testimony. 
The  amount  of  evidence  necessary  to  prove  a  conclusion 
contrary  to  the  combined  testimony  of  Hamilton  and  Madi 
son  is  obviously  much  greater  than  that  required  to  prove  a 
case  in  harmony  with  the  assertions  of  either  one. 

Mr.  Ford  begins  by  objecting  to  conclusions  drawn  from 
comparisons  of  language  and  thought.  A  general  objection 
of  this  sort  has  little  weight.  Every  piece  of  historical  criti 
cism  must  stand  or  fall  on  its  own  merits.  Internal  criti 
cism  may  be  applied  in  a  rash  or  an  ignorant  fashion,  but  it 
must  be  met  point  by  point.  Mr.  Ford  has  failed  to  examine 
my  method  with  care,  or  he  would  not  have  made  the  com 
parison  about  the  Esprit  des  Lois,  nor  alleged  that  I  quoted 
Madison's  speeches  in  the  Virginia  convention  to  prove  that 

1  This  part  of  Mr.  Ford's  Introduction,  xxx.-xxxix,  was  first  published  in  the 
American  Historical  Review  in  July,  1897,  ostensibly  as  a  reply  to  my  essay  in  the 
April  number,  and  was  accompanied  by  the  larger  part  of  the  present  paper  in 
the  form  of  a  running  comment.  It  will  be  conceded,  I  think,  that  some  of  his 
assertions  were  proved  absolutely  to  be  mistaken,  and  that  the  basis  of  others 
was  seriously  undermined.  Notwithstanding  this,  Mr.  Ford  reprinted  his  article 
nearly  a  year  later  in  his  edition  of  The  Federalist  without  corrections  or  defence. 
As  his  edition  will  deservedly  have  a  wide  circulation  and  a  long  life,  I  have 
decided  to  reprint  here  my  strictures  on  his  discussion  of  the  authorship  of  the 
disputed  numbers.  This  will  account  for  the  form  of  the  present  article. 


150  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

he  wrote  the  disputed  numbers.  I  did  that  but  twice 
(pp.  132,  135)  and,  if  those  instances  are  examined  critically, 
it  will  be  seen  that  they  were  perfectly  legitimate.  All  the 
other  parallel  passages  except  one  from  Madison  are  from  his 
letters  or  memoranda  written  before  The  Federalist. 

The  next  point  that  Mr.  Ford  makes  is  that  Madison's 
opportunities  for  remembering  the  facts  about  the  authorship 
of  the  disputed  numbers  were  not  as  good  as  Hamilton's. 
That  may  be  true  as  he  puts  the  case,  but  Madison  was  a 
methodical  man,  and  he  may  have  kept  a  list  from  the  begin 
ning.  However  that  may  be,  in  the  only  case  that  can  be 
tested  with  absolute  certainty,  that  of  the  authorship  of 
Nos.  18, 19,  and  20,  I  have  shown  that  Madison  did  remember 
the  facts  far  more  exactly  than  Hamilton.  Mr.  Ford  offers 
no  instance  where  it  can  be  proved  that  Hamilton  was  more 
nearly  right  than  Madison. 

Mr.  Ford  next  tries  to  establish  the  earliest  dates  of  Madi 
son's  and  Hamilton's  lists,  but  his  conclusions  cannot  be  ac 
cepted.  In  the  first  place  it  is  an  unsupported  conjecture 
that  Madison's  list  was  no  older  than  the  date  of  the  copy  of 
The  Federalist  that  he  sent  to  Gideon  in  1818,  i.  e.,  not  ear 
lier  than  1799.  Second,  we  have  Madison's  own  assertion 
that  his  list  was  an  early  one,  if  not  substantially  a  contem 
porary  one.  He  wrote  Robert  Walsh,  in  1819,  as  follows: 
"  If  I  have  any  interest  in  proving  the  fallibility  of  Mr.  Ham 
ilton's  memory,  or  the  error  of  his  statement,  however  occa 
sioned,  it  is  not  that  the  authorship  in  question  is  of  itself  a 
point  deserving  the  solicitude  of  either  of  the  parties;  but 
because  I  had,  at  the  request  of  a  confidential  friend  or  two, 
communicated  a  list  of  the  numbers  in  that  publication,  with 
the  names  of  the  writers  annexed,  at  a  time  and  under  cir 
cumstances  depriving  me  of  a  plea  for  so  great  a  mistake  in  a 
slip  of  memory  or  attention."  (Writings  of  James  Madison, 
III,  126.)  Again,  in  his  letter  to  Paulding  (1831),  Madison 
says  that  his  assignment,  "if  erroneous,  could  not  be  ascribed 
to  a  lapse  of  memory,"  but  to  a  lack  of  veracity.  He  calls  it 
"  the  distribution  communicated  by  me  at  an  early  day  to  a 


THE  AUTHORSHIP   OF  THE    FEDERALIST         151 

particular  friend,  and  finally  to  Mr.  Gideon."  Hamilton's 
lapse  of  memory  he  attributes  partly  to  "  the  period  of  time, 

not  less  than •  years,  between  the  date  of  the  Federalist 

and  that  in  the  memorandum."  (Writings,  IV,  176-177.) 
All  this  is  decisively  against  the  unsupported  hypothesis  that 
Madison  did  not  draw  up  his  list  until  twelve  years  had 
elapsed. 

Mr.  Ford  tries  to  fix  the  date  of  the  earliest  Hamilton 
statement  of  the  authorship,  that  given  to  Chancellor  Kent, 
by  concluding  that  "  as  he  is  spoken  of  in  the  memoranda  as 
'General  Hamilton,'  it  must  have  been  made  while  he  held 
that  rank,  or  in  the  years  1798  or  1799."  But  the  fact  that 
Chancellor  Kent  calls  Hamilton  "  General "  fixes  the  date 
only  in  one  direction,  i.  e.,  Kent  would  not  have  called  Ham 
ilton  "  General "  at  a  date  prior  to  his  holding  that  rank;  nor 
would  he,  on  the  other  hand,  cease  to  call  him  so  after  he  had 
left  the  army.  Such  titles  stick  to  men  the  rest  of  their 
lives.  Dawson,  for  example,  in  his  Introduction,  styles- 
Hamilton  "General,"  but  that  does  not  indicate  that  Daw- 
son  wrote  in  1798  or  1799. 

The  passage  just  quoted  from  Madison's  letter  to  Walsh 
gives  the  probable  reason  why  he  did  not  enter  the  discussion 
earlier. 

In  regard  to  Mr.  Ford's  next  point,  relating  to  the  sub 
division  of  the  work,  I  will  refer  to  my  previous  discussion 
of  that  matter  (pp.  117-119). 

Mr.  Ford  tries  to  show  that  it  was  his  professional  engage 
ments  that  led  Hamilton  to  suffer  Madison  to  write  twelve 
consecutive  numbers,  but  Madison  was  early  invited  to  take 
part,  and  the  real  question  is  not  why  he  wrote  so  many  after 
No.  37,  but  why  he  wrote  so  few  in  the  first  part  (see  above, 
p.  117).  Jay  did  not  write  more  because  of  his  illness  during 
that  winter.  Mr.  Ford's  parallel  example  in  April  is  not  well 
taken,  for  the  reason  that  although  no  more  numbers  were 
published  in  the  journals  for  over  two  months,  the  rest  of 
the  numbers  were  written  in  April  or  possibly  earlier.  May  4, 
Hamilton  wrote  Madison:  "The  second  [i.  e.,  volume  of 


152  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

Publius]  will  be  out  in  the  course  of  a  week."  (Writings, 
VIII,  183.)  When  the  first  volume  was  issued,  March  22, 
the  publishers  announced:  "The  second  is  in  the  press." 
(Dawson,  p.  Iviii.)  It  is  obvious  that  the  last  eight  numbers 
were  written  and  the  second  volume  carried  through  the 
press  at  the  time  when  Mr.  Ford  concludes  that  Hamilton 
suspended  his  labors. 

Mr.  Ford's  argument  from  transitions  and  so-called  breaks 
seems  to  me  a  very  precarious  one.  In  fact  it  breaks  down 
just  at  the  point  where  it  ought  to  be  strong.  There  is  such 
a  typical  "break"  at  the  beginning  of  No.  47,  but  as  all  the 
testimony  is  against  a  change  of  authorship  at  that  point,  he 
concludes  that  the  "break"  merely  indicates  the  taking  up 
of  a  new  subject  by  the  same  writer,  whereas  at  No.  52,  the 
evidence  being  conflicting,  the  "break"  indicates  a  new 
writer  and  not  a  new  subject,  although  the  subject  is  new. 
An  examination  of  these  transitions  in  general  seems  to  me  to 
show  that  they  are  not  significant  unless  you  know  beforehand 
what  they  mean. 

In  assigning  Nos.  49,  50,  and  51  to  Madison,  Mr.  Ford 
apparently  does  not  realize  that  he  raises  Hamilton's  certain 
errors  to  five  (including  54  and  64),  and  proportionately 
strengthens  Madison's  testimony. 

Mr.  Ford  next  suggests  a  length-test,  but  if  it  is  valid  it 
counts  against  his  conclusions  in  regard  to  Nos.  49-51 ;  if  he 
is  right  in  these  conclusions  his  length-test  breaks  down,  for 
we  have  in  that  case  four  short  papers  from  Madison  in  suc 
cession.  On  the  other  hand  Nos.  62  and  63  contain  about 
2,500  and  3,000  words. 

Mr.  Ford  ignores  the  striking  break  in  continuity  between 
Nos.  61  and  62,  where  62  obviously  joins  on  to  No.  58. 

The  evidence  from  references  to  English  history  is  unfairly 
weighed,  because  the  cases  in  No.  47  are  omitted  on  the 
ground  that  it  cannot  be  positively  ascribed  to  Madison. 
The  only  evidence  against  the  unanimous  testimony  of  all  the 
lists  in  regard  to  47  is  the  extremely  equivocal  transition  or 
"break"  test.  It  is  impossible  to  believe  that  Madison,  who 


THE  AUTHORSHIP   OF  THE  FEDERALIST         153 

was  one  of  the  most  careful  students  of  history  of  the  time, 
had  to  have  his  attention  called  by  Hamilton  to  the  utility  of 
examples  from  English  history.  I  have  called  attention  to 
the  fact  that  Madison  was  reading  at  this  time  Burgh's  Dis 
quisitions^  which  are  quoted  in  No.  56.  Madison's  Notes,  being 
"Notes  of  Ancient  and  Modern  Confederacies"  would  not 
naturally  contain  facts  about  England. 

In  regard  to  No.  54,  I  will  refer  to  the  points  made  in  my 
article,  (p.  127).  As  the  number  is  put  into  the  mouth  of  a 
Southern  statesman,  whether  Madison  or  Hamilton  believed 
in  the  arguments  is  irrelevant;  the  only  requirement  is  that 
the  arguments  should  be  such  as  a  Southerner  would  use. 

That  Madison  was  "absolutely  opposed'1  to  property  repre 
sentation  is  asserted  without  evidence,  and,  in  fact,  is  a 
mistake.  He  wrote  in  1785:  "In  a  general  view,  I  see  no 
reason  why  the  rights  of  property,  which  chiefly  bears  the 
burden  of  government,  should  not  be  respected  as  well  as 
personal  rights  in  the  choice  of  rulers."  (Writings,  I,  181; 
also  p.  129.) 

In  regard  to  the  uncertainty  expressed  in  No.  52  on  the  term 
of  the  Virginia  assembly,  it  may  be  said  that  as  "  Publius" 
pretended  to  be  a  citizen  of  New  York,  that  uncertainty  might 
have  been  assumed  as  a  natural  touch  for  a  New  Yorker. 

There  is  no  praise  for  the  House  of  Lords  in  No.  63.  It  is 
merely  cited  to  prove  that  there  is  no  danger  to  be  feared  from 
the  organization  of  the  Senate  when  an  aristocratic  body  like  the 
Lords  has  not  been  able  to  hold  its  own  against  the  Commons. 

The  reference  to  the  senate  of  Maryland,  as  far  as  it  goes, 
points  to  Madison's  being  the  author  of  No.  63,  rather  than 
Hamilton.  In  the  Convention,  Madison  said  of  it :  "  In  no 
instance  had  the  Senate  of  Maryland  created  just  suspicions 
of  danger  from  it."  Hamilton,  on  the  other  hand,  said: 
"The  Senate  of  Maryland  has  not  been  sufficiently  tried." 
(Scott's  ed.  of  the  Debates,  pp.  155  and  182;  cf.  also  Madi 
son's  favorable  opinions  in  his  Writings,  I,  177  and  186.) 

The  mention  of  local  circumstances  of  New  York  State, 
etc.,  in  Nos.  54  and  57  contains  nothing  beyond  the  ordinary 


154  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

knowledge  that  an  intelligent  man  would  acquire  in  a  few 
months'  residence.  Furthermore  there  are  similar  references 
to  several  other  States  in  No.  57. 

As  for  the  insertion  of  an  additional  paragraph  in  No.  56 
when  it  was  republished  in  the  edition  of  1788,  the  conclu 
sions  Mr.  Ford  draws  are  by  no  means  so  sure  as  they  seem 
to  him.  When  I  wrote  my  article  I  took  it  for  granted  that 
Lodge  was  right  when  he  said  the  insertion  was  first  made  in 
the  1802  edition,  but  the  fact,  first  brought  out  by  Mr.  Ford, 
that  it  was  made  in  1788  puts  a  different  face  on  the  matter. 
The  number  was  published  Feb.  19,  and  Madison  did  not 
leave  New  York  till  March  4.  According  to  the  announce 
ment  made  March  22,  a  part  of  the  second  volume  at  least 
was  already  in  the  hands  of  the  printers.  It  is  not  at  all 
improbable  that  that  insertion  may  have  been  made  with 
Madison's  assent,  or  by  him  at  Hamilton's  suggestion. 
We  are  informed  that  Hamilton  was  very  scrupulous  not  to 
make  changes  in  numbers  not  his  own  when  the  edition  of 
1802  was  prepared,  but  any  changes  in  Madison's  numbers 
for  the  1788  edition  could  have  been  made  with  his  consent. 
In  any  case,  with  this  possibility,  the  argument  of  Mr.  Ford 
falls  far  short  of  conclusiveness.  If  the  change  were  made 
with  Madison's  consent,  the  retention  of  the  insertion  by 
Madison  in  1818  is  explained. 

Finally,  Mr.  Ford  assumes  that  a  memorandum  found 
among  Hamilton's  papers  and  identified  by  Lodge  (I,  497)  as 
a  "Brief  of  Argument  on  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,"  was  in  reality  a  syllabus  of  The  Federalist,  and  he 
prints  it  as  such  in  his  edition.  He  goes  further,  and  sug 
gests  that  it  was  probably  drawn  up  "as  a  guide  for  Madi 
son,"  and  concludes  that  it  is  a  valuable  piece  of  evidence  as 
to  the  authorship  of  the  disputed  numbers.1  These  assump 
tions  will  not  stand  examination.  They  reveal  very  clearly 
that  some  of  Mr,  Ford's  conclusions  are  mere  haphazard  con 
jectures,  and  not  based  on  sound  critical  method.  It  is  in 
trinsically  improbable  that  Hamilton  would  have  thought  it 

1  See  pp.  xxxiii  and  xliii-xlvii. 


THE  AUTHORSHIP   OF  THE  FEDERALIST         155 

necessary  to  outline  for  Madison  the  line  of  argument  to  be 
followed  in  defending  the  details  of  a  Constitution  which  he 
more  than  any  one  else  had  made,  and  in  the  making  of  which 
Hamilton  had  taken  little  active  part.  It  is  doubtful  if  Mad 
ison  would  have  accepted  any  such  subordinate  position. 
John  C.  Hamilton  (Republic,  III,  519)  identifies  this  piece 
as  the  draft  of  the  latter  part  of  Hamilton's  speech  of  July 
13.  Inasmuch  as  the  things  to  be  discussed  in  a  speech  de 
fending  the  Constitution  and  in  The  Federalist  are  the  same, 
the  heads  to  be  taken  up  would  necessarily  be  almost  identical. 
To  fit  this  "Brief"  to  his  hypothesis,  Mr.  Ford  rearranges 
the  heads  or  topics.  Even  then  the  likeness  is  noteworthy  in 
only  a  part  of  the  topics.  The  decisive  argument  against 
Mr.  Ford's  conjecture  is  the  fact  that  some  of  the  heads 
reproduce  the  topics  of  some  of  Hamilton's  earlier  numbers. 
Compare,  for  example,  "D"  of  the  "Brief"  with  The  Fed 
eralist,  No.  9;  also,  Powers  II.  with  No.  22,  and  Powers  I. 
with  No.  23.  Second,  while  the  historical  examples  of  re 
publics  cited  by  Madison  in  No.  39  could  not  be  very  different 
from  those  which  Hamilton  might  cite,  owing  to  the  limited 
number  of  well-known  republics,  yet  the  similarity  between 
the  two  documents  is  mainly  in  the  use  of  this  common 
material.  The  portion  of  39  which  has  been  so  frequently 
quoted  is  the  analysis  of  the^federal  and  national  elements  of 
the  Constitution,  and  of  this  famous  analysis  there  is  not  a 
vestige  in  Hamilton's  "Brief." 

The  question,  however,  is  absolutely  settled  by  the  fact  this 
syllabus  reproduces  in  skeleton  form  an  argument  elaborated 
in  one  of  the  earliest  Madison  papers,  No.  14,  published 
Nov.  30.  Toward  the  end  of  the  syllabus  we  find  these 
apparently  meaningless  figures  under  the  caption : 

"  Exaggerated  ideas  of  extent  :" 

"N.     45        42 
S.      31        31 

~14    11      438 
973   7641-  mean  868f  by 
750"  " 


156  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

What  could  Madison  make  out  of  that  memorandum 
unaided?  Turning,  however,  to  No.  14,  p.  84,  the  signifi 
cance  is  clear.  The  whole  number  is  devoted  to  confuting 
Montesquieu's  notion  that  republican  government  was  suited 
only  to  small  territories.  One  of  several  arguments  urged 
against  its  application  to  the  Union  is  that  the  Union  is  not 
really  so  large  after  all.  "  The  limits  as  fixed  by  the  treaty 
of  peace  are :  on  the  east  the  Atlantic,  on  the  south  the  lati 
tude  of  31  degrees,  on  the  west  the  Mississippi,  and  on  the 
north  an  irregular  line,  running  in  some  instances  beyond  the 
45th  degree,  in  others,  falling  as  low  as  the  42d.  Computing 
the  distance  between  the  31st  and  45th  degrees,  it  amounts 
to  973  common  miles ;  computing  it  from  31  to  42  degrees, 
to  764^  miles.  Taking  the  mean  of  the  distance,  the  amount 
86 8 J.  The  mean  distance  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Missis 
sippi  does  not  probably  exceed  750  miles,"  etc.  The  same 
argument  and  additional  points  that  I  have  omitted  will  also 
be  found  in  the  memorandum  which  Madison  drew  up  for 
use  in  the  Virginia  convention.  The  natural  and  unbiassed 
conclusion  is  that  this  statistical  argument  was  originally 
drawn  up  by  Madison,  and  that  it  was  so  effectively  used  by 
him  in  No.  14  that  Hamilton,  in  preparing  himself  for  the 
New  York  convention,  jotted  down  a  brief  memorandum  of 
the  figures  for  the  dimensions  of  the  country.  This  was  per 
fectly  legitimate.  It  is  by  no  means  necessary  to  prove  or  to 
assume  that  every  argument  in  The  Federalist  originated  with 
Hamilton.  There  are  no  difficulties  in  believing  that  this 
document  is  what  John  C.  Hamilton  and  Lodge  called  it, 
" Brief  of  Argument,"  etc.  There  are  insuperable  difficulties 
in  believing  it  to  be  what  Mr.  Ford  says  it  was :  a  syllabus 
drawn  up  by  Hamilton  in  January,  1788,  to  guide  Madison 
in  expounding  the  details  of  a  government  that  Hamilton  did 
not  believe  in  and  of  which  Madison,  more  than  any  one  else, 
was  the  framer.1 

1  This  last  and  conclusive  disproof  of  Mr.  Ford's  position  on  the  question  of 
this  "  Syllabus  of  the  Federalist,"  is  from  my  review  of  his  edition  in  the  American 
Historical  Review  in  October,  1898. 


THE  FEDERALIST  ABROAD 


THE  FEDERALIST  ABROAD 

THAT  TJie  Federalist  did  not  receive  adequate  recognition 
at  the  time  of  its  publication  as  a  remarkable  contribution  to 
political  literature  has  been  frequently  asserted,  but  without 
good  grounds.  Undoubtedly  some  disparaging  comments 
have  been  unearthed,  but  its  rare  quality  was  promptly  recog 
nized  by  competent  judges.  Interesting  evidence  of  this  fact 
is  afforded  by  the  literary  history  of  The  Federalist  abroad. 
The  keen  interest  in  France  in  the  development  of  the  Amer 
ican  Republic  gave  American  works  on  politics  a  ready  wel 
come  there,  and  it  was  in  France  and  by  Frenchmen  that 
The  Federalist  received  its  first  foreign  recognition  as  an 
important  contribution  to  political  literature.  In  1792  it  be 
came  clear  to  the  moderate  men  in  France  that  the  dispro 
portionate  influence  of  Paris  in  political  affairs  was  a  source  of 
danger  and  ought  to  be  counterbalanced.  The  consequent 
desire  to  win  support  for  any  well  considered  plan  of  decen 
tralization  seems  to  have  prompted  the  translation  of  The 
Federalist  into  French  in  that  year.  The  translator  was  a 
young  lawyer  of  the  Girondist  party,  C.  M.  Trudaine  de  la 
Sabliere,  a  friend  of  Andre  and  M.  J.  Chenier.  The  author 
ship  of  the  essays  was  first  formally  announced  on  the  title- 
page  of  this  edition,  and  Hamilton  and  Madison  immediately 
took  rank  among  the  great  political  writers  of  the  day. 

On  August  24th,  the  National  Assembly  acting  on  a  motion 
originally  presented  to  the  Legislative  Assembly  the  10th  of 
February,  passed  a  decree:  "que  le  titre  de  citoyen  frangais 
sera  decern£  a  tous  les  philosophes  qui  ont  eu  le  courage  de 
defendre  la  libertd  et  1'egalit^  dans  les  pays  e'trangers."  The 
matter  was  then  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Public  Instruc- 


160  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL  CRITICISM 

tion  to  make  nominations.1  The  scope  of  this  plan  of  confer 
ring  honorary  citizenship  on  eminent  foreigners  was  extended 
on  the  26th  by  including  men  who  had  served  the  cause  of 
liberty  by  arms. 

This  was  approved,  and  the  Assembly  then  took  action  as 
follows,  according  to  the  record:  [!' Assembled  Nat]  "Declare 
ddferer  le  titre  de  citoyen  frangais  au  Docteur  Joseph  Priest 
ley,  a  Thomas  Payne,  a  Je*re*mie  Beintham,  a  William  Wil- 
berforce,  a  Thomas  Clarkson,  a  Jacques  Makintosh,  a  David 
Williams,  &  N.  Gorani,  &  Anarcharsis  Cloots,  a  Corneille  Paw, 
£,  Joachim-Henry  Campe,  a  Pestalozzi,  a  Georges  Washing 
ton,  &  Jean  Hamilton,  a  N.  Maddis6n,  a  H.  Klopstack,  et  a 
Thadde  Kociusko."2  This  great  distinction,  placing  two 
Americans  without  much  previous  literary  reputation  upon  a 
level  with  Jeremy  Bentham  and  Sir  James  Mackintosh,  is  a 
striking  indication  of  the  appreciation  of  The  Federalist 
by  some  at  least  of  the  leaders  of  French  thought  and 
politics. 

Two  editions  of  this  French  translation  were  published  in 
1792,  which  indicates  a  considerable  popular  interest  in  the 
essays  of  Publius.  In  the  National  Convention,  however, 
the  Paris  or  centralizing  party  got  the  upper  hand,  and  soon 
the  name  of  "federalist"  was  to  be  perilously  akin  to  that  of 
"traitor."  The  Convention  on  September  25th  declared, 
"the  French  Republic  is  one  and  indivisible,"  and  referred 
to  a  committee  the  proposition  to  inflict  the  death  penalty  on 

1  See  the  Proces-Verbaux  du  ComiU  d' Instruction  Publigue,  Paris,  1889, 
114-116. 

8  The  Proces-Verbal  de  I' Assemble  Nationale,  torn.  13,  Aug.  18-27, 1792.  The 
inclusion  of  Hamilton  and  Madison  in  the  list  may  have  been  owing  to  M.  J. 
Che'nier.  He  had  presented  a  petition  to  the  National  Assembly  on  Aug.  24, 
in  behalf  of  this  proposal  to  admit  to  French  citizenship  eminent  foreigners,  and 
in  his  long  list  of  benefactors  of  humanity  is  included  "  Madisson,  qui,  dans  le 
Fedtfraliste,  a  deVeloppe  avec  profondeur  le  systeme  des  Confederations."  (Euvres 
de  M.  J.  Che'nier,  V,  150.  The  mistakes  in  the  initials  of  Hamilton  and  Madi 
son  are  to  be  accounted  for  hy  the  fact  that  the  title-page  of  Le  Federalist*  gave 
simply  the  surnames.  Schiller  was  added  to  the  list  the  same  day  by  a  special 
vote.  This  honorary  naturalization  of  foreigners  is  mentioned  in  Aulard,  Ilistoire 
Politique  dela  Revolution  Fran$aise,  Paris,  1901,  566. 


THE  FEDERALIST  ABROAD  161 

those  who  should  propose  a  dictatorship,  a  triumvirate,  a  tri 
bunate,  or  le  gouvernement  federatif.1 

During  the  conservative  reaction  in  1795  another  edition 
of  The  Federalist  was  issued.2 

In  Germany  The  Federalist  became  known  through  the 
French  translation.  This  was  the  subject  of  a  very  intelli 
gent  and  thorough  review  in  the  Allgemeine  Literatur- 
Zeitung^  in  which  it  was  declared  that  there  were  few  books 
designed  for  the  general  public  that  had  so  successfully  com 
bined  profound  reflection  with  popular  exposition.  It  was, 
on  the  whole,  to  be  reckoned  among  the  pre-eminent  works 
of  political  literature. 

On  at  least  three  other  occasions  and  in  three  other  coun 
tries,  when,  as  in  France,  in  1792,  the  question  of  centraliza 
tion  versus  decentralization  under  a  federal  constitution  has 
been  at  issue,  The  Federalist  has  been  enlisted  in  the  discus 
sion.  In  the  beginning  of  the  perennial  struggle  between  a 
unitary  and  a  federal  constitution  in  the  Argentine  in  1818, 
The  Federalist  was  frequently  appealed  to,4  and,  finally,  in 
1868,  a  Spanish  translation  from  the  English  text  was  pub 
lished  in  Buenos  Aires  by  the  well-known  publicist,  J.  M. 
Cantilo.5 

There  was  a  strong  federal  movement  in  Brazil  in  1840-42, 
and  a  widespread  desire  to  establish  a  Federal  Republic  like 
the  United  States.6  This  gave  the  occasion  for  a  Portuguese 

1  Proces-Verbal  de  la  Convention,  Nationale,  I,  49-50. 

2  Trudaine  de  la  Sabliere,  the  translator,  like  so  many  of  his  party,  met  his 
death  on  the  scaffold  in  1794. 

3  Dec.  27,  1792.    The  reviewer  ranked  The  Federalist  much  higher  than  he  did 
John  Adams's  Defence  of  the,  Constitutions  of  the  United  States. 

4  "  The  writings  of  Franklin,  The  Federalist,  and  other  American  works  are 
frequently  quoted."     H.  M.  Brackenridge,  Voyaqe  to  South  America  in  the  Years 
1817  and  1818,  II,  141. 

6  This  edition  has  escaped  the  notice  of  Lodge  and  Ford.  Its  title  is :  "  El 
Federalista.  Articulos  sobre  la  constitution  de  los  Estados  Unidos  escritos  en 
1787  por  Mr.  Hamilton,  Mr.  Madison  y  Mr.  Jay  .  .  .  con  un  apendice  que  con- 
tiene  los  articulos  de  Confederacion  y  Constitucion  de  los  E.  U.  Traduccion 
hecha  del  testo  Ingles  por  J.  M.  Cantilo.  Buenos  Aires,  1868." 

6  See  the  article  by  L.  de  Chavagnes,  "Le  Bre'sil  en  1844,"  in  the  Revue  de 
DeuxMondes,  July,  1844,  76-79. 

11 


162  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

translation  from  the  French  edition  of  1795,  which  was  pub 
lished  in  Rio  Janeiro  in  1840. 

Lastly,  in  1864,  when  the  long  contest  for  a  real  Federal 
Union  in  Germany  was  approaching  its  final  stage,  Wilhelm 
Kiesselbach  reviewed  for  the  German  people  the  history  of  the 
formation  of  the  American  Union,  in  a  two-volume  work 
entitled  Der  Amerikanische  Federalist.  Politische  Studien 
far  die  deutsche  Gregenwart  (Bremen,  1864).  A  large  part  of 
the  second  volume  is  devoted  to  a  presentation  of  the  con 
tents  of  The  Federalist  in  a  condensed  form. 

That  The  Federalist  has  never  been  republished  in  England 
has  given  rise  to  some  remark,  but  the  reason  is  clear.  The 
number  of  American  editions  has  been  ample  to  supply  the 
ordinary  demand  arising  from  literary  or  historical  interest, 
arid  there  never  has  been  any  exceptional  interest  in  the  topics 
constituting  the  main  themes  of  The  Federalist^  because 
federalism  has  never  been  in  England  a  really  practical  polit 
ical  issue  save  as  it  has  recently  been  a  phase  of  the  Irish 
Home  Rule  question  or  of  the  schemes  of  imperial  federation. 


MADISON'S  STUDIES  IN  THE  HISTORY  OF 
FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT 


MADISON'S  STUDIES  IN   THE  HISTORY  OF 
FEDERAL  GOVERNMENT1 

IT  is  a  fact  of  no  little  interest  that  Madison,  whose  ideas 
pervaded  the  "Virginia  Plan,"  who  shaped  the  growth  of  the 
Constitution  in  the  Federal  Convention,  who  was  its  inde 
fatigable  champion  in  the  Virginia  convention,  and  who,  in 
The  Federalist,  was  the  ingenious  and  sympathetic  advocate 
of  its  fitness  for  American  conditions,  was  our  first  thorough 
and  systematic  student  of  the  history  of  federal  government. 
His  historical  studies  seem  to  have  been  especially  directed 
in  this  channel  as  early  as  1784,  when  he  realized  that  the 
Confederation  was  a  failure  and  rapidly  approaching  helpless 
ness  and  disintegration.  In  March  of  that  year  he  wrote 
Jefferson :  — 

"  You  know  tolerably  well  the  objects  of  my  curiosity.  I 
will  only  particularize  my  wish  of  whatever  may  throw  light 
on  the  general  constitution  and  droit  publique  of  the  several 
confederacies  which  have  existed.  I  observe  in  Boenaud's 
Catalogue  several  pieces  on  the  Dutch,  the  German,  and  the 
Helvetic.  The  operations  of  our  own  must  render  all  such 
lights  of  consequence.  Books  on  the  Law  of  N.  and  N.  fall 
within  a  similar  remark." 

Again,  on  April  27,  1785,  he  asked  for  "  Treatises  on  the 
ancient  and  modern  Federal  Republics,  on  the  law  of  nations, 
and  the  history,  natural  and  political,  of  the  New  World." 

With  Jefferson's  help  and  by  careful  scanning  of  cata 
logues,  Madison  gathered  a  collection  of  works  on  the  history 
of  federal  government,  which  was  probably  the  most  com 
plete  in  the  country  at  that  time.  With  his  customary  pains- 

1  From  a  paper  read  before  the  American  Historical  Association  in  New  York 
in  1896. 


166  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM" 

taking  diligence  Madison  studied  these  works,  and,  in 
preparation  for  the  Philadelphia  Convention,  he  drew  up  a 
careful  analysis  of  the  constitution  of  the  Lycian  League,  the 
Achaean  League,  Amphictyonic  Council,  Swiss  Confedera 
tion,  Germanic  Empire,  and  the  United  Netherlands.  In 
this  analysis  a  brief  sketch  of  the  origin  and  general  character 
of  the  federation  was  followed  by  particular  examination  of 
the  nature  of  the  federal  authority  and  of  the  defects  or 
"vices"  of  the  constitution,  as  he  called  them,  which  led  to 
its  decay. 

We  may  feel  sure  that  Madison,  in  1787,  had  more  thor 
oughly  studied  and  knew  more  of  the  history  of  federal  gov 
ernment  than  any  other  American  or  Englishman.  It  will  be 
of  interest  to  take  a  glimpse  at  the  range  of  these  studies. 
His  knowledge  of  the  Greek  federations  he  derived  mainly 
from  Polybius  and  a  treatise  in  Latin  on  the  Greek  republics 
by  the  eminent  Dutch  scholar,  Ubbo  Emmius.1  Gillies' 
History  of  Greece,  published  within  a  year,  was  also  drawn 
into  service,  as  well  as  two  recent  French  works,  Comte 
d'Albon's  discourses  on  the  history  and  government  of 
Europe,2  and  the  extensive  cyclopedia  of  comparative  pol 
itics,  edited  by  Felice,  which  was  usually  referred  to  by 
Madison  under  its  secondary  title,  Le  Code  de  VHumanitL* 

These  works  also  proved  rich  in  information  on  the  consti 
tution  of  the  Swiss  Confederation,  the  Netherlands,  and  the 
Empire.  Felice's  work,  which  is  in  thirteen  volumes,  Madi 
son  had  ordered  in  1785  through  Jefferson,  who  praised  it  as 
"a  very  good  dictionary  of  universal  law,"  and  who  bought  it 
for  him  before  Madison's  order  could  have  arrived.  For 


1  Freeman's  confident  assertion,  "  It  is  clear  that  Hamilton  and  Madison  knew 
hardly  anything  more  of  Grecian  history  than  what  they  had  picked  up  from  the 
Observations  of  the  Abbe  Mably  was  unjust  and  mistaken.    See  his  History  of 
Federal  Government  (Bury's  ed.),  249.     Madison  cites  or  refers  to  Polybius  in  his 

Writings,  I,  298,   347,  399.     The   title   of   Ubbo   Emmius'   book   is    Grcecorum 
Respublicce  Descriptce,  Leyden,  1632. 

2  Discours  politiques,  historiques  et  critiques  sur  quelques  gouvernments  de  V Europe, 
Neuchatel,  1779. 

8  Yverdun.  1778. 


MADISON'S  STUDIES  IN  FEDERAL   GOVERNMENT    167 

Switzerland  he  used  a  Dictionnaire  de  Suisse^-  the  account 
of  Temple  Stanyan,  published  in  1714,  of  which  Dr.  John 
son  said,  "The  Swiss  admit  that  there  is  but  one  error  in 
Stariyan,"  and  Coxe's  Sketches,  which  is  praised  by  Free- 
man.  The  most  serviceable  description  of  the  constitution 
of  the  Netherlands  he  found  in  Sir  William  Temple's  Observa 
tions.  For  Germany  he  relied  upon  Felice  and  upon  Savage's 
History.  In  addition  to  these  studies  it  hardly  needs  to  be 
said  that  Madison,  like  several  of  his  contemporaries,  had 
studied  Aristotle's  Politics  and  mastered  Montesquieu's  Spirit 
of  the  Laws.  Of  the  last  he  made  an  abstract  for  Washing 
ton's  use  prior  to  the  convention,  and  Washington  borrowed 
and  copied  with  his  own  hand  Madison's  material  on  the 
history  of  federations. 

The  question  naturally  arises,  what  use  did  Madison  make 
of  these  materials  ?  Turning  to  the  journal  of  the  conven 
tion,  we  find  that  in  his  important  speech  of  June  19  against 
Patterson's  plan  for  revising  the  Articles  of  Confederation, 
he  reviewed,  as  he  says,  "the  Amphictyonic  and  Achaean 
Confederation  among  the  ancients  and  the  Helvetic,  Ger 
manic  and  Belgic  among  the  moderns,"  tracing  their  analogy 
to  the  United  States  in  the  Constitution  and  extent  of  their 
federal  authorities  and  in  the  tendency  of  the  particular  mem 
bers  to  usurp  on  these  authorities  and  to  bring  confusion  and 
ruin  upon  the  whole.  Later,  in  the  same  speech,  he  showed 
by  examples  from  the  same  history  how  vulnerable  loose  con 
federacies  were  to  foreign  attack  by  intrigue. 

Similarly,  on  June  28,  he  enforced  his  argument  that  the 
small  States  had  nothing  to  fear  from  combinations  of  the 
large  States,  by  appealing  to  the  history  of  the  Empire,  where 
it  was  the  "contentions,  not  the  combinations,  of  Prussia 
and  Austria  that  have  distracted  and  oppressed  the  German 
Empire."  In  Nos.  18,  19,  and  20  of  The  Federalist  this 
material  is  again  digested  into  a  powerful  argument  against 
any  form  of  government  in  which  the  sovereign  authority 
deals  with  States  rather  than  with  individuals.  The  moral 

1  Edited  by  V.  B.  Tscharner,  Zurich,  1773. 


168  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

is  driven   home   in   compact  and   telling   sentences   at   the 
close. 

Having  done  what  he  could  to  advocate  the  Constitution  in 
New  York,  Madison,  in  March,  1788,  went  to  Virginia  to 
prepare  for  the  Virginia  convention.  For  this  purpose  he 
drew  up  "  an  additional  memorandum  "  on  the  defects  of  mere 
confederacies.  In  the  mean  time  he  had  added  to  his  previous 
material  notes  on  the  Hanseatic  League,  the  Union  of  Galmar, 
and  the  Union  of  Scotland  and  England.  This  memorandum 
also  took  up  the  traces  of  representative  institutions  among 
the  ancients,  especially  in  Sparta,  Rome,  and  Carthage,  and 
the  utility  of  a  moderating  senate.  In  the  Virginia  conven 
tion  Madison  was  as  prominent  as  in  the  Philadelphia  con 
vention,  and  his  efforts  not  less  important.  He  met  the 
specious  eloquence  of  Patrick  Henry  by  repeated  appeals  to 
solid  facts,  to  those  of  recent  experience,  and  to  those  of  an 
earlier  age.  This  Madison  was  prepared  to  do  by  his  expe 
rience  in  the  old  Congress  and  by  his  historical  studies. 

From  the  reports  of  the  Virginia  convention  one  may  see 
how  effectually  Madison  performed  this  task.  The  report 
is,  of  course,  condensed :  — 

"  If  we  recur  to  history  and  review  the  annals  of  mankind, 
I  undertake  to  say  that  no  instance  can  be  produced  by  the 
most  learned  man  of  any  confederate  government  that  will 
justify  a  continuation  of  this  present  system  or  that  will  not 
demonstrate  the  necessity  of  the  change,  and  of  substituting 
for  the  present  pernicious  and  fatal  plan  the  system  now 
under  consideration,  or  one  equally  energetic. 

"  The  powers  of  the  Amphictyonic  Council  were  exercised 
on  the  component  states  which  retained  their  sovereignty. 
To  this  capital  defect  it  owed  its  disorders  and  final  destruc 
tion.  The  Germanic  system  is  neither  adequate  to  the  exter 
nal  defense  nor  internal  felicity  of  this  people.  The  doctrine 
of  quotas  and  requisitions  flourishes  here;  without  energy, 
without  stability,  the  Empire  is  a  nerveless  body;  the  most 
furious  conflicts  and  the  most  implacable  animosities  between 
its  members  strikingly  distinguish  its  history.  Concert  and 


MADISON'S  STUDIES  IN  FEDERAL   GOVERNMENT    169 

co-operation  are  incompatible  with  such  an  injudiciously  con 
structed  system." 

Of  late  the  fanciful  suggestion  that  the  Federal  Constitu 
tion  was  imitated  from  the  United  Netherlands  has  here  and 
there  received  favor.  The  indebtedness  to  Holland  was  of  a 
far  different  kind  in  Madison's  eyes.  "The  confederate 
Government  of  Holland,"  he  proceeds,  "is  a  further  confir 
mation  of  the  characteristic  imbecility  of  such  governments. 
From  the  history  of  this  Government  we  might  derive  lessons 
of  the  most  important  utility.  Governments  destitute  of 
energy  will  ever  produce  anarchy.  These  facts  are  worthy 
the  most  serious  consideration  of  every  gentleman  here. 
Does  not  the  history  of  these  confederacies  coincide  with  the 
lessons  drawn  from  our  own  experience  ?  I  most  earnestly 
pray  that  America  may  have  sufficient  wisdom  to  avail  her 
self  of  the  instructive  information  she  may  derive  from  a  con 
templation  of  the  sources  of  their  misfortunes,  and  that  she 
may  escape  a  similar  fate  by  avoiding  the  causes  from  which 
their  infelicities  sprang." 

In  short,  for  Madison,  all  his  study  of  the  history  of  federal 
government  confirmed  his  diagnosis  of  the  existing  evils. 
Permanent  peace,  prosperity,  and  development  could  not  be 
obtained  under  any  type  of  confederacy  known  to  history. 
All  have  fallen  a  prey  to  dissension  and  disintegration.  Some 
thing  new  must  be  devised  in  the  form  of  a  federal  constitu 
tion.  From  the  debates  in  Philadelphia  emerged  our 
Constitution,  to  be  recognized  and  classified  as  a  new  type : 
the  Bundesstaat,  or  Federal  State,  the  creation  of  Madison's 
thought  more  than  of  any  one  else's.  The  evils  of  the  Con 
federation  were  obvious,  and  history  showed  Madison  that 
they  were  irremediable.  When  we  realize  fully  Madison's 
part  in  the  Constitution,  the  unsparing  toil  which  he  devoted 
to  its  formation  and  adoption,  we  can  form  some  idea  — 
although,  of  course,  not  an  exact  one  —  of  the  importance  in 
our  history  of  his  studies  in  the  history  of  federal  government. 


PRINCE  HENRY  THE  NAVIGATOR 


PEINCE  HENRY  THE  NAVIGATOR1 

THE  various  commemorations  of  the  discovery  of  the  New 
World  during  the  last  two  years  have  quickened  the  histori 
cal  instincts  of  every  student,  and  as  the  momentous  nature 
of  that  event  in  the  history  of  the  world  becomes  more  vividly 
apparent,  the  essentially  historical  problem  to  learn  how  it 
all  came  about  becomes  more  and  more  fascinating.  Colum 
bus  became  convinced  that  his  project  was  practicable  by  the 
combined  force  of  two  lines  of  influence,  the  speculative 
views  of  Aristotle,  Seneca,2  and  Toscanelli,  and  the  results 
of  the  Portuguese  explorations  of  the  coast  of  Africa,  which 
at  every  step  winnowed  the  geographical  tradition  of  its  terri 
fying  chaff.  According  to  his  son  Ferdinand,  it  was  his 
reflections  upon  the  Portuguese  voyages  that  prompted  his 
careful  study  of  the  cosmographers  and  collection  of  evidence 
from  every  quarter.3  If  they  went  so  far  south  would  it  not 
be  possible  to  go  west  and  strike  land  ? 

It  is  possible  that  Columbus  might  have  ventured  without 
the  incitement  of  the  Portuguese  explorations,  but  without 

1  Read  at  the  meeting  of  the  American  Historical  Association,  held  in  Chicago 
in  July,  1893,  in  connection  with  the  World's  Historical  Congress. 

2  I  have  tried  to  show  elsewhere,  pp.  221  ff.,  that  the  interpretation  of  Seneca, 
Nat.  Qucest.,  Pref.  9-11,  which  Columbus  adopted  from  the  Imago  Mundi  of  Pierre 
d'Ailly,  who  derived  it  from  Roger  Bacon,  and  which  has  been  universally  ac 
cepted  by  modern  writers,  is  a  mistake.      Apart  from  the  tradition  of  this 
medieval  interpretation  there  is  no  good  reason  to  suppose  that  Seneca  had  any 
reference  to  a  transatlantic  voyage. 

3  "  Standosi  Egli  (i.  e.,  TAmmiraglio)  in  Portogallo,  comincib  a  congietturar. 
che,  siccome  quei  Portoghesi  caminavano  tanto  lontauo  al  mezo  di,  medesima- 
mente  si  potrebbe  caminare  alia  volta  dell'  Occidente,  e  che  di  ragione  si  potrebbe 
trovar  terra  in  quel  camino."    Historic  del  S.  D.  Fernando  Colombo,  in  Venetia, 
MDLXXI,  folio  12.    The  edition  of  the  Historic,  published  in  London,  1867,  as 
Vita  di  Cristoforo  Colombo,  descritta  da  Ferdinando,  Suo  Figlio,   etc.,   Nuova 
edizione,  diligentementa  Riveduta  e  corretta,  is  entirely  untrustworthy.    The  text 
is  changed  capriciously  and  sometimes  important  clauses  are  left  out. 


174  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

Columbus  America  would  have  been  discovered  in  1500  by 
Cabral  as  the  almost  inevitable  result  of  the  efforts  of  Prince 
Henry  the  Navigator.  Few  careers  have  been  more  extraor 
dinary  in  their  influence  on  history,  and  yet  comparatively 
little  attention  outside  of  Portugal  has  been  given  to  his  work 
and  its  results  in  the  abundant  literature  that  has  lately  ac 
cumulated  about  the  discoveries.1 

In  view  of  the  extraordinary  character  of  Prince  Henry's 
work,  I  have  thought  it  worth  while  to  try  to  determine  as 
exactly  as  possible  by  a  careful  examination  of  contemporary 
sources  just  what  his  aims  were,  and  what  prompted  his 
course  of  action. 

The  earliest  authentic  statement  of  Prince  Henry's  aims 
that  I  have  found,  and  which  may  be  taken  as  his  own,  is  in 
a  charter  issued  Oct.  22,  1443,  and  recently  published,  I 
think  for  the  first  time,  which  prohibits  any  one  from  making 
a  voyage  beyond  Cape  Bojador  without  permission  from  the 
Prince.  The  passage  reads :  "  Dom  Affonso,  etc.  We  make 
known  to  all  who  see  this  Charter  that  the  Infant  Dom  Hen- 

1  His  life  has  been  written  five  times.  First,  by  Freire  (Candido  Lusitano), 
Lisbon,  1758.  Second,  by  Gustav  de  Veer.  Prinz  Heinrich  und  seiner  Zeit, 
Danzig,  1864;  an  excellent  piece  of  work.  Third,  The  Life  of  Prince  Henry, 
Surnamed  the  Navigator,  etc.  By  K.  H.  Major,  London,  1868;  very  learned,  with 
a  large  controversial  element,  and  not  very  systematically  arranged.  The  con 
densed  edition  of  1874  is  better  adapted  for  general  reading.  Fourth,  Dom 
Henrique  0  Infante,  Memoria  Historica  por  Alfredo  Alves,  Porto,  1894,  8vo,  125; 
an  interesting  volume  which  received  the  royal  prize  offered  in  view  of  the  ap 
proaching  fifth  centenary  of  Henry's  birth  for  the  best  work  on  his  career.  Fifth, 
Prince  Henry  the  Navigator,  etc.  By  C.  Raymond  Beazley,  London  and  New 
York,  1895.  The  work  of  Oliveira  Martins,  Os  Filhos  de  D.  Joao  I.  Porto, 
1891,  should  also  be  mentioned.  Freire's  work  was  translated  into  French  by 
the  Abbe  de  Cournand,  Lisbon,  1781.  2  vols.  Of  the  special  discussions,  "A 
Escola  de  Sagres  e  As  Tradi^oes  Do  Infante  D.  Henrique,"  a  lecture  before  the 
Royal  Academy  of  Sciences  of  Lisbon  in  1877,  by  the  Marquez  de  Souza  Holstein, 
contains  the  most  new  information.  The  most  recent  critical  review  of  the  rise 
of  Portuguese  exploration  is  Mr.  Beazley's  Introduction  to  the  second  volume  of 
the  translation  of  Azurara  by  himself,  and  Mr.  Prestage,  The  Hakluyt  Society, 
London,  1899.  The  two  recent  documentary  publications  that  throw  light  on  the 
period  are  described  when  cited.  Prince  Henry  was  born  March  4, 1394,  and  the 
five  hundredth  anniversary  of  his  birth  was  celebrated  with  appropriate  ceremo 
nies  in  Oporto  in  March  1,  1894. 


PRINCE  HENRY  THE  NAVIGATOR  175 

rique,  my  much  esteemed  and  beloved  uncle,  understanding 
that  he  would  do  service  to  our  Lord  God  and  to  us,  set 
about  sending  his  ships  to  learn  of  the  part  of  the  world 
beyond  Cape  Bojador,  since  until  that  time  there  was  no  one 
in  Christendom  who  knew  about  it,  nor  did  they  know 
whether  there  were  people  there  or  not,  nor  in  the  sea  charts 
and  maps  was  anything  beyond  Cape  Bojador  depicted  except 
what  seemed  good  to  the  makers ;  and  since  it  was  a  doubtful 
matter,  and  since  men  did  not  venture  to  go,  he  sent  thither 
fourteen  times  till  he  learned  about  that  region,  and  they 
brought  him  some  thirty-eight  Moors,  and  he  ordered  a  chart 
made,  and  he  told  us  that  his  plan  was  to  send  his  ships  fur 
ther  to  learn  of  that  region,"  etc.1  The  same  aim  is  as 
serted  in  another  charter  of  Alfonso  dated  Feb.  2,  1446, 2 
and  directly  by  Prince  Henry  himself  in  December,  1458, 
except  that  in  this  last  case  the  field  of  discovery  begins  from 
Cape  Non.3  Gomes  Eannes  de  Azurara,  in  his  invaluable 
Chronicle  of  the  Discovery  and  Conquest  of  Guinea,  which 
was  written  before  1453,  reports  a  conversation  between 
Prince  Henry  and  Antonio  Gongalvez  just  before  Gongalvez's 
voyage  in  1442. 4  This  may  be  considered  as  an  authentic 
representation  of  Prince  Henry's  views  either  in  1442  or  at 

1  Alguns  Documentos  do  Archive  National  da  Torre  do  Tombo  Acerca  das  Nava- 
gacoes  e  Conquistas  Portuguezas,  Lisbon,  1892,  8.     This  charter  may  be  taken  as 
a  personal  statement  of  Prince  Henry's,  as  Affonso  was  only  twelve  years  of  age 
and  under  the  guardianship  of  the  Regent  Dom  Pedro  and  of  Prince  Henry. 

2  Alguns  Documentos,  9. 

8  "  Sendo  certo  como  des  a  memoria  dos  homes  se  nom  avia  algua  noticia  na 
Christandade,  dos  mares,  terras  e  gentes  que  eram  alem  do  Cabo  de  Nam  contra  o 
meio  dia  e  esguardando  quanto  servigo  se  a  Dens  em  ello  fazer  podia,  e  bem  essy 
a  El  Rei  D.  Affonso  meu  snr.  e  sabrinho,  que  Deus  mantenha,  me  fundei  de 
enquerer  e  saber  parte  de  muitos  annos  passados  aca  do  que  era  des  o  dito  Cabo 
de  Nam  em  diante,  nam  sem  grandes  meus  trabalhos  e  infindas  despezas  special- 
mante  de  dinheiros  e  rendas  da  Ordem"  (of  Christ).  Cited  from  MS.  in  the 
Portuguese  archives,  in  A  Escola  de  Sagres  e  As  Tradicoes  do  Infante  D.  Henrique, 
by  the  Marquez  de  Souza  Holstein,  Lisbon,  1877,  47. 

4  Azurara,  Chronica  do  Descobrimento  e  Conquista  de  Guin^  Paris,  1841,  94. 
Azurara  is  now  accessible  to  the  English  reader  in  the  translation  of  Beazley  and 
Prestage.  London,  The  Hakluyt  Society,  1896  and  1899.  The  passage  referred  to 
in  the  text  is  in  I,  55. 


176  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

the  time  of  Azurara's  writing.  Gongalvez  desired  to  ex 
change  the  Moors  he  had  recently  taken  for  Negroes,  and 
urged  that  from  the  Negroes  they  could  obtain  information 
of  a  more  distant  region,  and  that  he  would  make  every  effort 
to  secure  such  information.  Prince  Henry  replied  that  not 
only  of  that  land  did  he  desire  information,  but  also  of 
the  Indies,  and  "of  the  land  of  Prester  John,  if  it  were 
possible. 

In  one  of  the  earlier  chapters  of  his  work,  Azurara  gives  in 
detail  the  objects  which  Prince  Henry  had  in  view.  He  tells 
us  that  the  Prince  was  of  a  temper  that  prompted  him  to  be 
ever  beginning  or  finishing  great  deeds,  and  "consequently 
after  the  capture  of  Ceuta  he  continually  kept  vessels  armed 
against  the  Infidels,  and  because  he  desired  to  know  the  land 
which  is  beyond  the  Canaries  and  a  cape  called  Cape  Bojador, 
since  till  that  time,  neither  by  writing,  nor  by  the  memory  of 
men  was  the  character  of  the  land  beyond  that  cape  definitely 
known.  To  be  sure  some  said  St.  Brandan  had  passed  that 
way,  and  others  that  two  galleys  had  been  there  but  never 
returned.1  .  .  .  And  because  the  Prince  desired  to  know  the 
truth  of  this,  it  seeming  as  if  he  or  some  other  lord  did  not 
seek  to  know  it,  no  mariners  or  merchants  would  ever  go 
there,  since  it  is  evident  that  they  would  not  try  to  sail  to  a 
place  unless  they  might  hope  for  profit  from  it,  and  seeing 
that  no  other  prince  was  working  at  this  he  sent  his  ships  to 
these  parts,  acting  in  the  service  of  God  and  of  King  Dom 
Eduarte,  his  lord  and  brother.  .  .  .  And  the  second  reason 
was,  because  he  expected  that  he  would  find  in  these  lands 
some  Christians  or  some  harbors  to  which  they  might  safely 
sail  and  derive  much  merchandise  from  these  kingdoms 
which  they  could  get  on  good  terms,  since  with  them  no  one 
traded  from  these  parts,  nor  for  any  other  so  far  as  was 
known,  and  that  likewise  the  products  of  these  kingdoms 

1  Probably  a  reference  to  the  Doria  Expedition  of  1291,  for  which  see  Pertz 
Der  ^Elteste  Versuch  zur  Entdeckung  des  Seeweges  nach  Ostindien,  Berlin,  1859. 
Pertz's  discussion  is  reproduced  by  Major  in  his  Prince  Henry,  99  ff.  My  refer 
ences  are  to  the  original  edition  of  Major's  book. 


PRINCE  HENRY  THE  NAVIGATOR  177 

could  be  exported  thither,  a  traffic  which  would  bring  great 
profits  to  the  inhabitants. 

"  The  third  reason  was,  because  it  was  said  that  the  power  of 
the  Moors  in  that  part  of  Africa  was  much  greater  than  was 
commonly  supposed,  and  that  there  were  no  Christians  among 
them  or  any  other  people.  And  since  every  judicious  man  is 
constrained  by  natural  prudence  to  desire  to  know  the  power 
of  his  enemy,  the  Prince  labored  at  sending  to  learn  definitely 
how  far  the  power  of  the  infidels  extended. 

"  The  fourth  reason  was,  that  during  the  thirty-one  years 
that  he  had  warred  against  the  Moors  he  had  never  found  a 
Christian  king  nor  lord  outside  of  this  land  that  for  the  love 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  had  been  willing  to  help  him  in 
war.  He  wanted  to  know  if  there  could  be  found  in  those 
regions  any  Christian  friends  in  whom  the  love  of  Christ 
would  be  so  strong  that  they  would  desire  to  help  him  against 
the  enemies  of  Christ." 

The  fifth  reason,  briefly  stated,  was  the  salvation  of  souls, 
through  the  spread  of  Christianity. 

Azurara  gives  as  a  sixth  reason,  and  an  especially  impor 
tant  one,  that  Prince  Henry's  horoscope  signified  that  he 
should  make  great  conquests  and  discover  things  hid  from 
other  men.1  The  detail  with  which  these  reasons  are  stated, 
the  similarity  between  them  and  those  stated  in  the  Bull  of 
Nicholas  V. ,  to  be  cited  presently,  and  the  fact  that  Azurara 
wrote  as  an  official  historian,  all  indicate  that  these  reasons, 
except  the  sixth,2  are  to  be  taken  as  derived  from  Prince 
Henry  himself.  If  so,  they  represent  his  attitude  not  far 
from  1446,  or  about  the  time  Azurara  was  beginning  his 
work.3 

1  Azurara,  Chronica  de  Guint,  44-49  ;  Beazley  and  Prestage's  Trans.,  I,  27-30. 

2  The  sixth  is  a  kind  of  afterthought  or  supplementary  reason  apparently 
suggested  by  Azurara  himself.    The  title  of  the  chapter  is  :  "  No  qual  se  mostram 
cinquo  razaoes  porque  o  senhor  iffante  foe  movido  de  mandar  buscar  as  terras 
de  Guynea."    Further,  after  stating  the  five  reasons,  Azurara  proceeds  :  "  Mais 
sobrestas  cinque  razaoes,  tenho  eu  a  VI,  que  parece  que  he  raiz  donde  todallas 
outras  procedem." 

3  The  fourth  reason  indicates  the  date,  thirty-one  years  after  the  capture  of 
Ceuta. 

12 


178  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

In  the  Bull  of  Nicholas  V.,  Jan.  8,  1454,  we  find  an  his 
torical  statement  so  similar  to  those  cited  from  Azurara  and 
the  documents  quoted  above  that  the  conclusion  is  unavoid 
able  that  it  must  have '  been  supplied  by  Prince  Henry  in 
his  petition  to  the  Pope.  It  reads :  "  When  long  ago  it  had 
come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Infant  that  never,  or  at  least, 
not  within  the  memory  of  man,  had  it  been  customary  to  sail 
the  Ocean  Sea  in  this  manner  toward  the  Southern  and  East 
ern  Shores,  and  that  it  was  to  that  degree  unknown  to  us  of 
the  West  that  we  had  no  certain  knowledge  of  the  people  of 
those  parts,  believing  that  he  would  do  very  great  service  to 
God,  if  by  his  efforts  and  activity  the  Sea  itself  should  be 
opened  to  ships  even  to  the  Indians  who  are  said  to  worship 
Christ l  and  he  might  thus  be  able  to  come  into  relation  with 
them  and  arouse  them  to  help  the  Christians  against  the 
Saracens  and  other  such  enemies  of  the  faith  and  to  subdue 
continuously  some  heathen  or  pagan  peoples  living  between 
slightly  [deeply2]  corrupted  with  the  teachings  of  the  un 
speakable  Mahomet  and  to  preach  to  them  and  to  have 
preached  to  them  the  unknown  name  of  the  most  sacred 
Christ,  always  armed  however3  with  royal  authority  since 
twenty-five  years  [of  age  4]  he  had  never  ceased  to  send  al 
most  yearly  a  force  from  the  peoples  of  these  kingdoms  with 
the  greatest  toils,  dangers  and  expense  in  very  swift  ships, 
called  caravels,  to  explore  the  Sea  and  the  maritime  provinces 
toward  the  Southern  regions  and  the  Antarctic  Pole ;  and  so 

1  The  subjects  of  Prester  John. 

2  The  text  of  the  A/guns  Documentos  reads  minirne,  while  that  in  the  Bullarum 
Collectio,  Lisbon,  1707,  reads  nimium. 

3  Tamen.    This  particle  is  omitted  in  Sixtus  the  Fourth's  transcript  of  this 
document.     This  most  involved  sentence  according  to  the  punctuation  in  the 
Bullarum  Collectio  contains  47  lines  ! 

4  "  Regia  tamen  semper  auctoritate  munitus,  a  viginti  quinque  annis  (,)  citra 
exercitum,"  etc.     The  reading  in  Alguns  Documentos  inserts  a  comma  after  annis, 
which  is  evidently   a  mistake.     Citra  goes  with   annis.     In   Sixtus   Fourth's 
transcript  (Bull.  Cell.  32)  ex  tune  is  found  in  place  of  citra.     A  viginti  quinque 
annis  probably  refers  to  Prince  Henry's  age.     Santarem,  Recherches  sur  la  Priority 
de  la  D&ouverte  de  la  Cote  occidentale  d'Afrique,  204,  translates  it  "  depuis  1'age 
de  vingt-cinque  ans,"  i.  e.,  from  1419. 


PRINCE  HENRY   THE  NAVIGATOR  179 

it  came  to  pass  that  when  ships  of  this  sort  had  explored  and 
taken  possession  of  many  harbors,  islands  and  seas,  that  they 
came  at  length  to  the  province  of  Guinea,  and  having  taken 
possession  of  some  islands,  harbors,  and  the  sea  adjacent  to 
that  province,  sailing  further  they  reached  also  the  mouth 
of  a  certain  great  river  commonly  considered  the  Nile,  and 
against  the  peoples  of  those  regions  in  the  name  of  King 
Alfonso  and  the  Infant  for  some  time  a  war  existed,  and  in 
it  very  many  neighboring  islands  were  subdued  and  peace 
fully  possessed.  Thence  also  many  people  of  Guinea  and 
other  regions  captured  by  force,  certain  also  by  an  exchange 
of  unprohibited  articles  or  some  other  lawful  contract  of  pur 
chase,  have  been  brought  to  the  said  Kingdoms;  of  whom 
many  have  been  converted  to  the  Catholic  faith,  and  it  is 
hoped  that  in  the  divine  mercy,  if  progress  of  this  kind 
continues  that  either  the  whole  people  will  be  converted 
to  the  Faith,  or,  at  least,  the  souls  of  many  be  gained  for 
Christ."1 

There  are  several  things  in  this  passage  which  merit  spe 
cial  attention.  We  find  here  evidences  of  the  crusading 
spirit  in  Prince  Henry,  along  with  the  spirit  of  scientific 
curiosity.  The  same  spirit,  somewhat  belated,  at  times 
dominated  Columbus,  but  manifested  itself  in  the  impracti 
cable  project  of  recovering  the  Holy  Sepulchre ;  with  Prince 
Henry  it  was  practical  and  aimed  at  the  conquest  of  Africa. 
Other  indications  of  the  strength  of  this  spirit  in  Prince 
Henry  will  be  noted  later.  It  is  apparent  from  this  passage 
and  the  preceding  that  the  prince  planned  the  circumnaviga 
tion  of  Africa.  "The  Indians  who  worship  Christ"  are 
obviously  the  subjects  of  Prester  John,  whose  kingdom  after 
the  thirteenth  century  was  commonly  supposed  to  be  in  East 

1  Alguns  Documentos,  15-16  ;  Bullarum  Collectio,  18-20.  The  Latin  text  and  an 
English  translation  of  this  Bull  may  be  found  in  William  Bollan's  Coloniae  An- 
glicanae  Illustratae:  or,  The  Acquest  of  Dominion,  and  the  Plantation  of  Colonies 
made  by  the  English  in  America,  with  the  Rights  of  the  Colonists,  examined,  stated, 
and  illustrated,  London,  1772,  117-136.  According  to  Bollan  the  full  text  of 
the  Bull  was  first  published  by  Leibnitz  in  his  Codex  Juris  Dlplomaticus,  1693. 
Dumont  transcribed  it  from  Leibnitz's  text  for  his  Corps  Universel  Diplomatique, 


180  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

Africa.1  From  this  time  the  hope  of  reaching  the  kingdom 
of  Prester  John  was  a  powerful  incentive  with  the  Portu 
guese  discoverers.  Both  Diaz  and  da  Gama  were  on  the 
lookout  for  him  and  King  John  tried  to  reach  him  by  an 
overland  expedition. 

That  Henry  was  confident  of  reaching  a  region  that  he 
thought  of  as  India,  whether  it  may  have  bee»  in  Eastern 
Africa  Gf-fedia  proper,  appears  with  equal  clearness  from 
Diogo  Gomez's  narrative  of  his  voyage  in  1456(7).  When 
he  was  in  the  territory  of  a  certain  chief  Batimasa,  south  of 
the  Gambia,  he  wanted,  as  he  says,  "to  make  an  experiment 
by  sending  James,  a  certain  Indian  whom  the  Lord  Infant 
sent  with  us  so  that  if  we  should  enter  India,  we  might  have 
an  interpreter."2 

The  other  passages  from  Gomez  upon  Prince  Henry's  plans 
naturally  fall  in  here.  The  first  two  relate  to  the  earliest 
periods  of  the  explorations,  and  perhaps  cannot  be  entirely 
trusted.  A  voyage  in  1415  is  mentioned,  and  the  Infant  is 
said  to  have  always  taken  pains  to  send,  at  his  own  expense, 
to  explore  foreign  parts.3  The  next  year  he  sent  out  another 
expedition  to  investigate  the  ocean  currents.4 

When  Tristan  and  Gongalvez  brought  the  first  captives  in 
1442,  Prince  Henry  carefully  examined  them  as  to  their 

1  See  Yule's  art.  "  Prester  John,"  Encyclopaedia  Brit,  XIX,  717.     Santarera, 
Recherches  sur  la  Priority  etc.,  323,  gives  the  following,  "  Texte  ecrit  au  verso 
des  cartes  de  la  Cosmographie  de  Ptolemee  par  le  Cardinal  Franpois-Guillaume 
Fillastre,"  with  the  date  1427  :  "Quarta  Africe  tabula,  tota  pene  ad  austrum  et 
ultra  Egiptum,  continet  Getuliam,  Libiam  interiorem,  Ethiopian!  junctam  Egipto, 
Nubiam,  Indiam  inferioremque  (sic)  ad  Ethiopian!  vergit  et  ipsam   Ethiopian!. 
.  .  .  Et  in  istis  India  et  Ethiopia  est  terra  Presbyteri  Johannis  Christiani,  qui  dici- 
tur  regnare  super  72  reges,  quorum  1 2  sunt  infideles,  reliqui  Christiani,  sed  diver- 
sorum  rituum  et  sectarum." 

2  Gomez,  De  Prima  Inventions  Guineae.     Schmeller,  Ueber  Valenti  Fernandez 
Alema,  Abhandlungen  der  Munchner  Akademie,  1845,  Iste  Classe,  29.     Beazley, 
Prince  Henry,  293.     Beazley  gives  a  translation  of  Gomez's  accounts  of  his  own 
voyages,  pp.  289-98.     A  translation  of  the  same  portion  of  Gomez  will  also  be 
found  in  Major,  Prince  Henry,  288-98.     Gomez  is  supposed  to  have  written  not 
later  than  1483.     Schmeller,  17. 

8  Ad  inquirendum  extremas  partes,  Gomez,  19. 

4  Desiderans  scire  causam  tarn  magni  maris  currentis,  Ibid.,  19. 


PRINCE  HENRY  THE  NAVIGATOR  181 

country,  and  learned  the  route  to  Timbuctu.  In  1444  Gon- 
c,alo  de  Sintra  and  Dinis  Dias  were  sent  out,  and  were  en 
joined  to  go  beyond  Petra  Galeae  to  see  if  they  could  find 
other  languages  spoken.  The  result  of  this  expedition  was 
the  establishment  in  1445  of  a  post  in  the  island  of  Arguim. 
Soon  after  this  the  Prince  directed  his  commanders  to  avoid 
strife  with  the  natives  and  to  enter  into  peaceful  commer 
cial  relations,  with  them,  as  he  desired  to  convert  them  to 
Christianity.1 

The  foregoing  pages  contain  the  contemporary  evidence  in 
regard  to  Prince  Henry's  aims.  I  now  propose  briefly  to 
consider  the  influences  which  impelled  him  to  a  course  of 
action  so  exceptional  in  his  time,  yet  so  rich  in  results. 
What  first  turned  his  attention  to  that  continent  which  has 
preserved  its  mysteries  longer  than  any  other  part  of  the 
world  except  the  Poles  ?  Prince  Henry's  original  interest  in 
the  exploration  of  Africa  is  generally  attributed  to  his  expe 
riences  in  the  conquest  of  Ceuta  in  1415,  when  Portugal 
attempted  to  carry  the  age's  long  war  against  the  Moors  into 
Africa.2  At  the  capture  of  this  fortress,  the  African  counter 
part  of  Gibraltar,  he  won  his  spurs. 

The  primary  impulse  then  would  seem  to  have  been  cru 
sading  zeal.3  Once  on  the  ground,  at  Ceuta,  he  was  brought 
face  to  face  with  the  fact  that  while  little  was  known  of  the 
coast  of  Africa  there  was  a  considerable  internal  commerce 
which  was  very  profitable.4  Thus  the  desire  to  promote 

1  Gomez,  23. 

2  Barros,  Dec.  1,  Lib.  I,  Cap.  2.     The  first  five  Books  of  Barros'  Decadas  da 
Asia  have  been  translated  into  German  by  Dr.  E.  Feust,  Niirnberg,  1844. 

3  As  examples  of  the  crusading  spirit  the  following  may  be  noted :  "  de  pois 
da  tomada  de  Cepta,  sempre  trouxe  continuadamente  Navyos  Armados  contra  os 
infiees."   Azurara,  44.    (See  above,  p.  177.)  "  Omnes  proventus  quos  habebat  et  ex 
Guinea  omnia  expendebat  in  bello  et  continua  armata  in  mare  contra  Sarracenos 
pro  fide  Christiana."     Gomez,  in  Schmeller,  32. 

4  "  Ad  mare  arenosum  Cathaginenses  qui  nunc  vocantur  Tunisi  cumcarobanis 
et  camelis  aliquando  700  pertransierunt  usque  ad  locum  qui  dicitur  Tambuctu  et 
aliam  terram  Cantor  pro  auro  arabico  quod  ibi  invenitur  in  copia  maxima,  de 
quibus  hominibus  ac  animalibus  multociens  vix  decima  pars  reversa  est.     Quod 
audiens  Infans  Henricus  movit  eum  (i.  e.  Gonzalo  Velho  in  1416).,  inquirere 


182  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

commerce  was  early  excited  in  his  mind  and  irrespective  of 
his  explorations  received  steady  attention.  In  Azurara's 
quaint  phrase  he  brought  the  East  and  the  West  together 
that  men  might  learn  to  exchange  wealth.1  The  evidence 
cited  above  in  regard  to  his  aims  shows  clearly,  however,  that 
as  soon  as  he  realized  to  what  an  extent  Africa  was  unex 
plored,  the  zeal  for  discovery  was  awakened  in  him  and  soon 
took  the  first  place  in  his  mind.  However  profitable  the  ex 
peditions  down  the  coast  of  Africa  were  during  the  latter 
part  of  his  life,  they  were  evidently  a  heavy  expense  during 
the  earlier  years.2 

Early  in  the  next  century,  in  the  first  glow  of  triumph 
over  the  successful  voyage  of  da  Gama  to  India,  a  Portu 
guese  geographer,  whose  treatise  was  not  printed  until  1892, 
was  so  profoundly  impressed  with  the  magnificent  culmination 
of  Prince  Henry's  work,  that  he  attributed  his  impulse  to 

terras  illas  per  aquam  maris  ad  habendum  coramercia  cum  ipsis  et  ad  nutrien- 
dum  suos  nobiles."  Gomez,  in  Schmeller,  19,  on  the  year  1416.  On  the  basis  of 
this  and  perhaps  with  additional  information  Hieronymus  Miinzer  wrote  about 
1494 :  "  Idem  Heuricus,  frater  Eduardi,  considerans  paternas  census  nou  tantis 
expensis  sufficere,  animum  applicuit  terras  incognitas  aperire.  Considerans 
autem  regem  de  Tunis,  i.  e.  Carthagine  multum  auri  quotanuis  habere,  duos  ex- 
plorationes  ad  Tunis  misit ;  certiorque  f actus,  quo  modo  rex  de  Tunis  merces  per 
Atlantica  juga  in  Aethiopiam  meridiauem  miserit,  et  aurum  sclavosque  attulerit, 
idem  hoc  ipsum  per  mare  temptavit  facere,  quod  rex  de  Tunis  per  terram  multis 
annis  potnit  efficere."  Evidently  by  this  time  the  voyages  were  paying  so  well  as 
to  be  a  valuable  adjunct  to  the  royal  revenue.  (See  note,  p.  188.)  Kunstmann, 
Hieronymus  Al  timer's  Bericht  iiber  die  Entdeckung  der  Guinea,  60. 

1  Ca  tu  per  continuades  passagees  fizeste  ajuntar  o  levante  corn  o  poente, 
porque  as  geutes  aprendessem  a  comuder  as  riquezas.     Chronica  de  Guine',  41. 

2  Prince  Heury,  in  1458,  said  the  voyages  had  been  made  "not  without  great 
labors  on  my  part  and  infinite  expense,  especially  of  the  monies  and  income  of 
the  Order."    Souza  Holstein,  47.    (See  above,  note  .3,  p.  175.)    The  Military  Order 
of  Christ  (Ordem  da  Milicia  de  Nosso   Senhor  Christo)  was  the  successor  and 
heir  of  the  Templars.     The  king's  charter  declared  "  que  a  Ordem  de  Christo  se 
tinha  feito  em  Reformacao  do  Templo,  quo  se  desfez."     Pope  John  XXII.  recog 
nized  the  new  order  by  a  brief,  March  14,  1319.     Santa  "Rosa  de  Viterbo,  Elud- 
dario  das  Palavras,    Termos,  e  Frasas  Antifjuades   da   Lingua  Portngueza,   art. 
"  Tempreiros,"   II,   248,   Lisbon,    1865.      Prince   Henry   was   appointed   Grand 
Master  of  the  Order  by  his  father,    King  John,   in    1418.     He   exercised   the 
functions  of  Master,  but  did  not  become  a  full  member.     He  took  the  title  of 
Governor.     Souza  Holstein,  A  Escola  de  Sagres,  74. 


PRINCE  HENRY  THE  NAVIGATOR  183 

divine  inspiration.  "  Lying  one  night  in  his  bed,  it  came  to 
the  Infant  in  revelation  how  it  would  be  doing  much  service 
to  our  Lord  to  discover  the  said  Ethiopias  (i.  e.,  Guinea);  in 
which  region  would  be  found  a  great  multitude  of  new 
peoples  and  black  men,  as  from  the  time  of  this  discovery 
till  now  we  have  known  by  experience;  whose  color  and 
fashion  and  manner  of  life  [no]  one  could  believe  if  he  had 
not  seen  them;  and  of  these  folk  a  large  part  were  to  be 
saved  by  the  Sacrament  of  Holy  Baptism;  it  being  further 
told  him  that  in  those  lands  would  be  found  so  much  gold 
with  other  such  rich  merchandise  that  with  it  the  kings  and 
peoples  of  these  kingdoms  of  Portugal  might  maintain  them 
selves  well  and  adequately  and  would  be  able  to  make  war 
against  the  infidels,  enemies  of  our  most  holy  Catholic  faith ; 
and  this  revelation  [of  the]  discovery  of  so  many  and  so  great 
provinces  newly  made  known  to  Christendom  surely  seems  to 
come  by  a  new  mystery  of  God  and  not  by  other  temporal 
means."1  Barros  evidently  refers  to  this  passage  when  he 
remarks  in  connection  with  Henry's  work,  "Some  indeed 
maintain  that  this  undertaking,  since  he  was  a  Catholic 
prince  of  very  pure  and  religious  life,  was  rather  revealed 
to  him  than  prompted  by  him."2 

When  Prince  Henry  was  once  started  upon  his  life-work 
he  prosecuted  it  with  energetic  persistency  and  availed  him 
self  of  every  possible  source  of  information  in  a  way  that 
proves  at  once  his  scientific  sagacity  and  his  profound  devo 
tion  to  the  cause.  One  of  the  most  striking  examples  of  his 
systematic  investigation  is  the  instance  where  he  gathered 
from  captive  Azenegues  a  sufficiently  accurate  description  of 
the  mouth  of  the  Senegal  to  enable  his  sailors  to  recognize 
the  stream  when  they  saw  it  for  the  first  time.3  At  another 
time  the  close  agreement  between  information  brought  home 

1  Esmeraldo  de  Situ  Orbis  por  Buarte  Pacheco  Pereira.     Edicao  Commemo- 
rativa  da  Descoberta  da  America  por  Christovao  Columbo,  no  seu  Quarto  Cente- 
nario  Sob  a  Dirreccao  de  Raphael  Eduardo  de  Azevedo  Basto.    Lisbon.    Imprensa 
Nacional,  1892,37. 

2  Barros,  Decade,  I,  Bk.  I,  ch.  II. 
8  Azurara,  Chronica,  278. 


184  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL  CRITICISM 

by  Gomez  and  that  which  he  had  received  by  letter  from  a 
merchant  in  Oran  confirms  his  belief  in  both  reports.1 

Prince  Henry  did  not  neglect  literary  sources.  His  brother 
Dom  Pedro  brought  from  Venice  in  1428  a  copy  of  Marco 
Polo2  and  a  map.  The  description  of  the  map  which  has 
been  handed  down  by  Antonio  Galvao  in  his  "  Treatise  on 
the  Discoveries"  is  evidently  greatly  exaggerated,3  but  it 
probably  did  contain  a  fairly  correct  outline  of  Africa  as  did 
an  Italian  map  of  1351  (the  so-called  Laurentian  Portulano). 
Such  maps  were  based  on  information  derived  through  the 
channels  of  land  trade  just  as  Prince  Henry  secured  a  de 
scription  of  the  Senegal.  The  familiar  map  of  Era  Mauro 
(1457-59),  which  was  made  for  King  Alfonso  V.  of  Portugal, 
is  another  example  of  such  a  happy  combination  of  guess 
work  and  vague  reports.  If  we  may  trust  Damiao  Goes, 
who  wrote  about  the  middle  of  the  next  century,  Prince 
Henry  was  a  careful  student  of  the  ancient  geographers  and 
knew  of  the  supposed  voyage  of  Hanno  around  Africa,  the 
expedition  ordered  by  Pharaoh  Necho  and  the  report  of 
Strabo  of  the  finding  of  fragments  of  Spanish  vessels  in  the 
Red  Sea.4  This  statement  must  be  received  with  caution  as 
it  is  partially  inconsistent  with  the  ever  reiterated  assertion 
of  the  contemporary  documents  of  the  absolute  novelty  of  the 
voyages  down  the  coast  of  Africa. 

To  avail  himself  of  the  highest  ability  in  nautical  matters 
the  Prince  engaged  at  great  expense  an  expert  map  and  in 
strument  maker  as  well  as  skilful  navigator,  Jacome  or  Jayme 

1  "  Et  postquam  reversus  sum  ad  D.  Infantem  retulendo  haec  omina,  dixit 
mihi,  quod  mercator  in  Oran  ei  scripserat  jam  duo  menses  elapsi  de  guerra,  etc. 
Et  sic  credebat  omiua."     Gomez,  in  Schmeller,  28. 

2  See  the  preface  of  the  early  Portuguese  edition  by  Valentim  Fernandez, 
quoted  by  Martins.     Osfilhos  de  D.  Joao,  I,  132. 

8  It  was  said  to  contain  the  Straits  of  Magellan  and  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope 
and  to  have  helped  the  prince  in  his  discoveries.  See  Major,  Prince  Henry,  62, 
or  the  Hakluyt  Soc.  Edition  of  Galvao's  Tratado,  66.  The  words  "  fairly  correct 
outline  "  of  course  are  not  to  be  taken  too  strictly.  These  maps  indicated  the 
peninsular  character  of  Africa,  and  showed  the  retreat  of  the  western  coast  line 
by  the  Gulf  of  Guinea,  etc. 

4  Souza  Holstein,  A  Escola  de  Sagres,  23. 


PRINCE  HENRY  THE  NAVIGATOR  185 

of  Majorca,  to  come  to  Portugal  to  instruct  his  officials.  This 
seems  to  be  the  sole  evidence  of  the  existence  of  a  nautical 
school  at  Sagres,  which  apparently  must  be  given  up  if  any 
systematic  institution  is  thought  of.  The  same  is  true  of  the 
supposed  foundation  of  a  chair  of  mathematics  at  the  Uni 
versity  of  Lisbon  attributed  to  him  by  Major  and  others. 
Prince  Henry's  will  first  published  after  Major  wrote  gives 
a  detailed  statement  of  his  foundations  and  mentions  many 
churches  and  a  bequest  to  a  chair  of  theology,  but  is  silent 
in  regard  to  any  nautical  school  at  Sagres  or  a  chair  of 
mathematics.1 

The  main  line  of  results  of  Prince  Henry's  work  are  prob 
ably  familiar  to  most  readers  of  this  essay.  As  was  indi 
cated  at  the  beginning,  he  removed  some  of  the  greatest 
obstacles  to  geographical  progress,  the  fantastic  and  imagi 
nary  terrors  of  the  deep.  I  cannot  do  better  than  to  quote  a 
passage  from  Diogo  Gomez  which  with  its  vivid  reflection  of 
contemporary  ideas  is  more  forcible  than  any  modern  state 
ment:  "And  these  things  which  are  written  here  are  put 
down  with  all  respect  to  the  most  illustrious  Ptolemy  who 
wrote  much  that  is  good  on  the  parts  of  the  world,  but  in 
regard  to  this  region  he  was  wrong.  For  he  divides  the 

1  Barros'  words  are  :  "  Pera  este  descubrimento  mandou  vir  da  ilha  de  Mal- 
horca  hum  Mestre  Jacome,  homem  mui  docto  na  arte  de  navegar,  que  fazia  car- 
tas  e  instrumentas,  o  qual  Ihe  custou  muito  pelo  trazer  a  este  Keyno  pera  ensinar 
sua  sciencia  aos  officiaes  Portuguezes  daquelle  mester."  Dec.  I,  ch.  XVI. 
Codine,  from  whose  review  of  Major  this  citation  is  taken  (Bull,  de  la  Soc.  de 
Geog.  Juin,  1873,  645),  deduces  from  it  "la  creation  d'une  Ecole  hydrograph- 
ique."  This  expanding  generalizing  process  has  been  followed  by  most  of  the 
modern  writers  on  Prince  Henry,  but  in  the  absence  of  corroborative  testimony 
Barros'  words  do  not  warrant  the  deduction.  The  most  ancient  chroniclers  are 
silent  on  the  subject.  The  contemporary  documents  are  silent.  Prince  Henry's 
will  covers  six  octavo  pages  and  mentions  all  his  foundations  so  fully  that  its 
silence  in  regard  to  the  School  of  Sagres  is  almost  decisive.  Consequently  the 
Marquis  de  Souza  Holstein  concludes  "that  in  Sagres  there  never  existed  a 
school  in  the  sense  in  which  the  word  is  generally  understood."  A  Escola  de 
Sagres,  77.  Prince  Henry's  will  is  given  on  pp.  81-86.  This  most  interesting 
document  is  also  printed  in  0  Infante  D.  Henrique  por  Manuel  Barradas,  Lisbon, 
1894,  129-146,  and  separately  in  cheap  form  by  the  Typographia  Lisbonense, 
Porto,  1894,  12mo. 


186  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

world  into  three  parts,  the  middle  part  inhabited,  the  north 
ern  part  he  wrote  is  without  inhabitants  on  account  of  the  ex 
cessive  cold,  and  the  southern  part  on  the  equator  he  wrote 
was  uninhabited  on  account  of  the  heat.  Now  of  all  these 
things  we  found  just  the  contrary,  because  we  saw  (or  have 
seen)  the  Arctic  pole  inhabited  even  beyond  where  the  pole 
star  is  directly  overhead,  and  the  equator  inhabited  by  blacks 
where  there  is  such  a  multitude  of  tribes  that  it  is  almost  not 
to  be  believed.  And  that  southern  part  is  full  of  trees  and 
fruits;  but  the  fruits  are  different  and  the  trees  are  incred 
ibly  tall  and  large.  And  I  say  this,  to  be  sure,  because  I 
have  seen  a  large  part  of  the  world,  but  never  the  like  of 
this."1  One  wishes  that  before  his  death  the  great  prince 
might  have  beheld  the  wonders  of  the  tropics  with  his  own 
eyes. 

The  opening  of  the  Atlantic  to  continuous  exploration  is 
the  most  momentous  step  in  the  history  of  man's  occupation 
of  the  earth.  It  was  destined  to  change  the  centre  of  grav 
ity  of  the  civilized  world.  Western  Europe,  so  many  cen 
turies  the  frontier,  became  the  centre,  and  to  London,  the 
Melbourne  of  Prince  Henry's  time,  was  given  the  fortune 
for  a  time  at  least  to  be  the  world's  commercial  capital,  and 
to  England,  the  inheritance  of  the  Indies  that  he  sought  to 
reach. 

The  priority  of  Henry's  efforts  to  explore  the  coast  of 
Africa  has  been  disputed,  but  the  case  with  him  is  much  as 
it  is  with  Columbus  and  his  alleged  precursors.  Their  voy- 

1  Gomez,  in  Schmeller,  23,  "  quia  polum  arcticum  vidimus  habitatum  usque 
ultra  perpendiculum  poli,"  etc.  Compare  with  Columbus'  voyage  one  hundred 
leagues  beyond  the  island  of  Tile  (Thule).  "  lo  navigai  1'anno  1477  nel  mese  di 
Febraio  oltra  Tile  isola,  cento  leghe,  la  cui  parte  australe  e  lontana  dall'  equino- 
ttiale  settantatre  gradi  .  .  .  non  era  congelato  il  mare,  quantunque  vi  fossero  si 
grosse  maree,  che  in  alcuni  luoghi  ascendeva  ventisei  bracci,  e  discendeva  altre- 
.  tanti  in  altezza."  Historic,  cap.  VI. 

In  both  statements  there  is  a  fabulous  element  which  may  simply  be  the 
natural  exaggeration  of  a  sailor's  yarn,  coupled  with  ignorance.  There  is  no 
good  reason,  it  seems  to  me,  to  decline  to  believe  that  Columbus  made  an  arctic 
voyage,  because  he  asserts  that  he  saw  tides  one  hundred  and  fifty  feet  high,  or 
that  Gomez  did  not  because  he  asserts  that  he  went  beyond  the  North  Pole  ! 


PRINCE  HENRY  THE  NAVIGATOR  187 

ages  cannot  be  proved  or  disproved.  In  any  case  they  have 
no  determinable  relation  to  later  progress.  As  in  Columbus' 
case  so  in  Prince  Henry's,  continuous  knowledge  and  explo 
ration  date  from  and  are  based  upon  his  work.  Further, 
the  evidence  is  incontestable  that  Henry  and,  at  least,  most 
of  his  contemporaries  believed  that  he  was  a  pioneer  and  his 
sailors  the  first  to  go  beyond  Cape  Bojador.  Further  still 
it  is  difficult  to  reconcile  their  positive  assertions,  and  the 
absence  of  contemporary  testimony  to  the  contrary  with  the 
detailed  history  of  French  voyages  resting  on  conjectures  as 
to  the  contents  of  documents  no  longer  extant. 

In  saying  a  few  words  in  conclusion  on  the  character  and 
personality  of  Prince  Henry  I  shall  limit  myself  to  the  men 
tion  only  of  some  of  the  more  striking  features.  No  reader 
of  Azurara's  quaint  and  charming  narrative  can  fail  to  see 
that  Prince  Henry  was  a  man  whose  force  of  character, 
untiring  resolution,  and  generosity  exercised  an  immense 
influence  over  his  followers,  infusing  them  with  zeal  and 
boldness.  They  strain  every  nerve  to  win  his  approval,  and 
he  possesses  their  unfaltering  allegiance. 

He  interests  us  chiefly  as  the  organizer  of  discovery,  he 
seems  so  devoted  to  that  as  sometimes  to  be  described  solely 
as  such.  But  to  his  contemporaries  he  is  that,  and  as  well 
a  crusading  prince,  following  up  the  capture  of  Ceuta  with 
continual  naval  onslaughts  upon  the  infidels,  a  military  mis 
sionary,  the  commander  of  the  Order  of  Christ,  working  to 
plant  Christianity  in  Africa  and  the  islands  of  the  sea,  the 
promoter  of  great  commercial  and  industrial  enterprises,  con 
trolling  the  tunny  fisheries  off  Algarve,  the  coral  fisheries  off 
Portugal,  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  soap,  the  dye  facto 
ries,  and  several  large  fairs.1  He  also  controlled  the  whole 
commerce  of  the  west  coast  of  Africa,  letting  it  out  on  shares 
and  apparently  establishing  the  first  commercial  and  discov 
ery  company  of  modern  times.2 

1  Holstein,  77-78,  cites  titles  of  charters  touching  these  enterprises. 

2  Holsteiu  says,  p.  53:    "  Ao  esfor^o  individual  succedeu   bem   depressa  o 
esfor£o  collective.    Logo  em  1444  se  forma  em  Sagres  uma  companhia  que  se 


188  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

That  the  slave  trade  should  form  an  important  part  of  that 
commerce  was  inevitable  at  that  time,  but  it  was  only  with 
the  occupation  of  tropical  America  that  the  slave  trade  took 
on  its  worst  phase.  The  slaves  imported  to  Portugal  were 
utilized  mainly  for  domestic  service,  and  became  Christians, 
which  at  that  time  would  greatly  mitigate  their  condition  if 
not  secure  their  emancipation.1 

As  a  soldier,  Prince  Henry  belongs  at  once  to  the  middle 
ages  and  to  modern  times.  He  fights  at  Ceuta  and  at 
Tangiers  like  a  mediaeval  knight,  while  he  plans  a  military 
exploring  expedition  like  a  modern  master  of  strategy.  His 
plan  to  circumnavigate  Africa,  and  strike  the  Moors  from 
behind  in  conjunction  with  the  shadowy  Christian  Monarch 
of  the  East  was  Napoleonic.  One  may  ask,  indeed,  if  a 
bolder  or  more  magnificent  conception  was  formed  from  the 
death  of  Alexander  the  Great  till  the  rise  of  Napoleon. 

I  have  spoken  of  him  as  a  crusader.  The  essential  aim  of 
the  Crusades  was  to  secure  the  dominance  of  Christianity. 
Prince  Henry's  work  directly  led  to  a  greater  extension  of 
Christianity  than  he  could  have  imagined.  The  enrichment 
of  the  Old  World  and  the  development  of  the  New  by  the 
discoveries  have  vastly  increased  the  weight  and  influence  of 
Christianity  in  the  world. 

propoe  continuar  os  descobrimentos  de  costa  occidental  d'Africa."  Sr.  Oliveira 
Martins  in  his  lecture  enlitled  Navegaciones  y  Descubrimientos  de  los  Portugueses 
Anteriores  al  Viage  de  Colon,  Madrid,  1892,  on  pp.  17-18,  writes  :  "  Y  la  (i.  e.,  a  sys 
tem  of  exploration)  hallo  el  gcnio  inventive  del  Infant,  ampliando  el  tipo  ya 
historica  de  las  companas  de  pescadores  a  las  proporciones  de  una  Compania 
colonial  y  maratima  que  luego  formd  en  Lagos  para  la  explotacion  del  rio  de 
Oro."  Neither  of  these  writers  cites  any  document,  and  I  have  been  unable  to 
lay  my  hands  on  any  other  contemporary  evidence  than  that  in  Ca  da  Mosto's 
narrative  which  shows  that  the  African  commerce  was  definitely  organized.  The 
average  profits  were  1700  per  cent  (perche  di  un  soldo  ne  facevano  sette  e 
dieci).  If  one  furnished  his  own  ship  and  cargo  he  must  pay  the  Prince  25  per 
cent  of  the  return  cargo  ;  Prince  Henry,  on  the  other  hand,  would  furnish  both 
ship  and  cargo,  and  receive  half  the  profits,  and  if  the  voyage  failed  the  Prince 
would  bear  the  loss.  Navigazioni  di  Messer  Alvise  da  Cd  da  Mosto,  cap.  I.  An 
English  translation  of  Ca  da  Mosto's  voyages  may  be  found  in  the  second  volume 
of  Kerr's  Voyages,  London,  1824. 

1  Azurara  states  that  927  slaves  were  imported  between  1443  and  1448,  and 
that  most  of  them  became  Christians.  Cronica  de  Guine',  454. 


PRINCE  HENRY  THE  NAVIGATOR  189 

But  while  emphasizing  these  other  sides  of  his  character, 
we  must  not  overlook  Prince  Henry  as  a  true  lover  of  science, 
always  actuated  by  an  unquenchable  desire  to  find  out  the 
secrets  of  the  earth  from  the  time  when,  at  twenty  years  of 
age,  he  is  said  to  have  sent  Gonzalo  Velho  beyond  the  Canaries 
to  learn  the  cause  of  the  swift  currents  of  the  sea. 

Talent  de  lien  faire,  The  desire  to  do  well,  was  his  motto. 
No  man  ever  chose  a  motto  of  more  singular  propriety,  and 
no  man  ever  lived  up  to  it  more  faithfully  than  did  Prince 
Henry  the  Navigator. 

Rightly  is  he  numbered  among  those  who  by  valiant  deeds 
have  freed  themselves  from  the  law  of  death. 

"  —  aquelles  que  por  obras  valerosas 
Se  vao  da  lei  da  morte  libertando."  x 

1  Camoens,  Os  Lusiadas,  Cant.  I,  Sta.  2. 


THE  DEMARCATION  LINE  OF  POPE 
ALEXANDER  VI. 


THE  DEMARCATION  LINE  OF  POPE 
ALEXANDER  VI.1 

THE  history  of  the  Line  of  Demarcation  established  by 
Pope  Alexander  VI.,  separating  the  Spanish  and  Portuguese 
fields  of  discovery  and  colonization,  has  received  compara 
tively  little  attention  from  English  writers.2  So  far  as  I 
have  been  able  to  learn,  no  satisfactory  or  reasonably  com 
plete  single  account  of  the  subject  from  beginning  to  end 
exists  in  the  language.  In  view  of  the  approaching  period 
of  Columbian  anniversaries  and  the  reawakened  interest  in 
all  things  pertaining  to  the  discovery  of  the  New  World,  a 
brief  history  of  this  curious  yet  momentous  transaction  will 
be  appropriate. 

Columbus,  upon  his  return  from  his  first  voyage,  landed 
near  Palos,  March  15,  1493.  He  promptly  despatched  a 
letter  to  Ferdinand  and  Isabella  giving  an  account  of  his 
discoveries.3  They  replied  March  30,  and  by  the  middle  of 

1  Read  before  the  American  Historical  Association  in  Washington,  in  Decem 
ber,  1891. 

2  Since  the  first  publication  of  this  paper  in  the  Yale  Review,  May,  1892,  two 
learned  discussions  of  this  subject  have  been  published  in  English.     Henry  Har- 
risse's  The  Diplomatic  History  of  America.     Its  first  chapter,  1452-1494.     B.  F. 
Stevens,  London,  1897,  and  Dr.  S.  E.  Dawson's   The  Lines  of  Demarcation  of 
Pope  Alexander  VI.  and  the  Treaty  of  Tordesillas,  A.  D.  1493  and  1494.     Trans, 
of  the  Royal  Soc.  of  Canada,  V,  1899-1900.     The  Copp-Clark  Co.,  Toronto.     In 
preparing  my  essay  for  republication  I  have  in  general  made  only  such  changes  as 
seemed  necessary.    I  am  indebted  to  both  Mr.  Harrisse  and  Mr.  Dawson  for  some 
suggestions  and  corrections. 

3  Mr.  Harrisse  believes  that  Columbus  sent  on  an  account  of  his  voyage  earlier 
while  in  Portugal.    Diplomatic  History,  12.     Gomara  states  that  a  messenger  was 
immediately  despatched  to  Rome  with  an  account  of  the  discoveries.      Hist. 
General  de  las  Indias,  I,  leaves  29  and  30.     Antwerp  Ed.  of  1554. 

13 


194  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

April,  Columbus  was  in  Barcelona  in  the  presence  of  the 
Catholic  sovereigns.  On  the  3d  of  May,  Pope  Alexander 
VI.,  in  response  to  their  request,  issued  his  first  Bull  grant 
ing  the  sovereigns  exclusive  rights  over  the  newly  discov 
ered  lands.  Evidently  no  time  was  lost.  Why  this  appeal 
to  the  Pope,  and  why  such  haste,  are  questions  which  at  once 
suggest  themselves. 

The  pretensions  of  the  later  Popes  of  the  Middle  Ages  to 
the  sovereignty  of  the  world  are  well  known  to  historical 
students.  It  became  not  uncommon  for  the  Popes  to  grant 
all  territory  wrested  from  the  infidels  to  the  victorious  Chris 
tian  prince.  Among  the  many  examples  of  the  exercise  of 
this  divine  sovereign  right,  the  papal  grants  to  Portugal  in 
the  latter  half  of  the  fifteenth  century  form  important  links 
in  the  chain  of  events  under  discussion.  Nicolas  V.,1  June 
18,  1452,  authorized  Alphonso  V.  of  Portugal  to  attack  and 
subdue  any  or  all  Saracen,  pagan,  and  other  infidel  commu 
nities  whatsoever,  to  reduce  their  inhabitants  to  perpetual 
servitude,  and  to  take  possession  of  all  their  property.  Any 
one  who  attempted  to  infringe  or  defeat  this  grant  would 

1  Following  Barros,  almost  all  writers  mention  a  Bull  of  Martin  V.,  e.  g., 
Munoz,  Hist,  del  Nuevo  Mundo,  159.  Barros  says  that  Prince  Henry  asked 
Martin  V.  for  a  grant  of  all  the  land  he  should  discover  from  Cape  Bojador  to 
the  Indies :  "  qiie  .  .  .  Ihe  aprouvesse  conceder  perpetua  doacao  a  Coroa  destes 
Reynos  de  toda  a  terre  que  se  descubrisse  per  este  nosso  Mar  Oceano  do  Cabo 
Bojador  te  as  Indias  inclusive."  Da  Asia  de  Joao  de  Barros,  Dec.  I,  Lib.  I, 
cap.  ii.  No  such  Bull  of  Martin  V.  has  come  down  to  recent  times,  and  it  is  alto 
gether  probable  that  Barros  wrote  Martin  V.  when  he  should  have  written 
Nicolas  V.  If  such  a  Bull  had  been  promulgated  by  Martin  V.  it  would  have 
been  included  in  the  great  Bull  of  Leo  X.  of  Nov.  3,  1514,  see  p.  203.  Prince 
Henry  requested  Pope  Eugene  IV.  to  grant  indulgences  in  favor  of  those  who 
perished  in  his  expeditions.  Azurara,  Cronica  de  Guin^  cap.  xv.  The  Bull  of 
Jan.  5,  1443,  was  granted  in  response  to  this  request  and  granted  both  the  indul 
gences  and  the  possession  of  territories  wrested  from  the  infidels.  Alguns  Docu- 
mentos  do  Archivo  National  da  Torre  do  Tombo  Acerca  das  Nauegaqoes  e 
corifjuistas  Portugezas,  Lisbon,  1892,  7.  As  a  precedent  for  the  Demarcation 
Bulls  the  grant  of  the  Canaries  to  Louis  of  Spain  by  Clement  VI.,  Nov.  15,  1344, 
is  important.  The  Bull  is  translated  by  D'Avezac  in  his  lies  de  I'Afrique,  Paris, 
1848,  part  3, 152-53.  The  original  text  and  accompanying  documents  may  be  read 
in  Theiner's  ed.  of  the  Annals  of  Baronius  and  Raynaldus,  XXV,  341-46.  This 
grant  was  more  like  a  feudal  investiture  than  the  later  grants  to  Portugal. 


THE  DEMARCATION  LINE  195 

incur  the  wrath  of  Almighty  God  and  of  the  blessed  Peter 
and  Paul  Apostles.1  After  a  short  interval,  Jan.  8,  1454, 
Nicolas  issued  a  Bull  in  which,  after  reviewing  with 
praise  the  zeal  of  Prince  Henry  in  making  discoveries  and 
his  desire  to  find  a  route  to  southern  and  eastern  shores  even 
to  the  Indians,  he  granted  to  King  Alfonso  all  that  had  been 
or  should  be  discovered  south  of  Cape  Bojador  and  Cape  Non 
toward  Guinea  and  "ultra  versus  illam  meridionalem  pla- 
gam  "  as  a  perpetual  possession.  Intruders  would  be  visited 
with  excommunication.2 

These  rights  were  confirmed  by  Sixtus  IV.,  in  a  Bull 
issued  June  21,  1481,  which  granted  to  the  Portuguese 
Order  of  Jesus  Christ  spiritual  jurisdiction  in  all  lands 
acquired  from  Cape  Bojador  uad  Indos."  This  Bull  also 
contained  and  sanctioned  the  treaty  of  1480  between  Spain 
and  Portugal,  by  which  the  exclusive  right  of  navigating  and 
of  making  discoveries  along  the  coast  of  Africa,  with  the  pos 
session  of  all  the  known  islands  of  the  Atlantic  except  the 
Canaries,  was  solemnly  conceded  to  Portugal.3 

Enough  has  been  cited  to  show  that  the  appeal  to  the  Pope 
was  natural.  I  venture  to  conjecture  that  in  these  papal 

1  "  Illorumque  personas  in  perpetuam  servitutem  redigendi  .  .  .  concedimns 
facultatem."     It  will  be  a  surprise  to  many  to  learn  that  the  revival  of  human 
slavery  thus  received  full  papal  sanction.     The  first  African  slaves  were  brought 
to  Portugal  in  1442.     The  system  was  in  its  infancy.    What  might  not  the  world 
have  been  saved  if  the  Vicar  of  God  had  forbidden  instead  of  authorizing  it ! 
The  Church  is  credited  with  promoting  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  Middle 
Ages.     It  is  difficult  to  see  how  she  can  be  cleared  of  having  powerfully  contrib 
uted  to  renew  it.     This  Bull  .of  Nicolas  V.  was  repeated  and  sanctioned  by  the 
Bull  of  Leo  X.,  Nov.  3,   1514,  which  is  in  the  Bullarum  Collectio  quibus  Sere- 
nissimis  Lusitaniae,  Algarbiorumque  Regibus  Terrarum  Omnium  .  .  .  jus  Patrona- 
tus  a  summis  Pontificibus  liberaliter  conceditur.  .  .  .   Omnes  ex  legali  Archivo  de- 
ductae,  et  in  hoc  volumen  redactae  .  .  .  jussu  serenissimi  Petri  Secundi  Lusitaniae 
Regis.     Ulyssipone,  Anno  1707.     This  Bull  of  Leo  X.  is  not  in  Mainard's  Bul- 
larium,  Rome,  1741. 

2  See  pp.  178-9  for  a  translation  of  part  of  the  passage  and  for  a  reference  to 
a  translation  of  the  Bull.    Nicolas,  the  next  day,  issued  a  Bull  in  reference  to  the 
extension  of  Christianity  in  these  regions.     Raynaldus,  Annales  XVIII,  423. 

3  Bullarum  Collectio,  45  ;  Alguns  Docs.,  47-55.    The  treaty  of  1480  which  Har- 
risse,  3,  quotes  from  a  MS.  is  printed  in  Alguns  Docs.,  42-43.     Innocent  VIII. 
added  his  confirmation,  Sept.  12,  1484.     Raynaldus,  Annales  XIX,  349. 


196  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

grants  to  Portugal  we  may  find  a  clew  to  the  real  cause  why 
Columbus  failed  to  enlist  the  support  of  the  Portuguese  King 
John  II.,  for  his  project  to  reach  the  Indies  by  sailing  west 
ward.  Our  scanty  sources  give  us  two  or  three  different 
reasons,  such  as  that  Columbus  made  excessive  demands 
upon  the  king,  and  that  the  king  hesitated  by  reason  of  the 
great  effort  and  heavy  expense  already  incurred  in  the  con 
quest  of  Guinea.1 

The  Portuguese  had  come  to  consider  it  only  a  question  of 
time  when  they  should  reach  the  Indies  by  sailing  around 
Africa,  and  the  exclusive  use  of  that  route  was  secured  to 
them  by  papal  Bulls  and  a  treaty  with  their  only  rivals.  Is 
it  not  likely  then,  that  the  real  reason  why  they  had  no 
encouragement  for  Columbus  was  that  they  thought  it  not 
worth  while  ?  They  had  a  sure  thing  of  the  African  route  and 
only  time  was  needed  to  develop  it.  Why  then  waste  time 
and  money  on  a  mere  possibility  ?  2  Spain,  on  the  other  hand, 
had  no  chance  at  all  at  the  Indies,  unless  they  could  be 
reached,  as  Columbus  proposed,  by  sailing  westward. 

Returning  now  to  our  second  query,  why  so  prompt  an 
appeal  to  the  Pope?  Columbus  recorded  in  his  journal, 
March  9,  1493,  that  in  their  interview,  King  John  of  Portu 
gal  had  affirmed  that  by  the  treaty  of  1480  this  new  conquest 
would  belong  to  him.  Columbus  promptly  replied  that  he 
had  not  been  in  the  direction  of  Guinea.  We  can  feel 
almost  certain  that  this  remark  of  King  John's  was  reported 
by  Columbus  to  Ferdinand  and  Isabella,3  and  that  they  felt 

1  Historic  dd  Signor  Don  Fernando  Colon,  ch.  xi. 

2  Two  criticisms  were  passed  on  this  conjecture  when  first  offered.     One,  that 
the  Portuguese  could  not  then  have  been  confident  of  reaching  India.     On  this 
point  it  is  decisive  to  refer  to  the  Fra  Mauro  Map  of  1459  (see  Huge,  Gesch.  des 
Zeitalters  der  Entdeckungen,  80,  and  Winsor,  Nar.  and  Crit.   Hist.,  2,  41),  to  the 
citation  from  Barros,  and   to  the    Bull  of  Jan.  8,  1454   pp.  194-5   supra,  and 
to  Munoz,  Hist,  del  Nuevo  Mundo,  Lib.  II,  cap.  xix.     The  second  criticism  was  : 
What  then  of  the  story  that  King  John  of  Portugal  secretly  tried  to  avail  him 
self  of  Columbus' ideas  by  sending  a  caravel  westward?     (Flistorie,  cap.  xi.) 
This  presents  a  difficulty,  but  I  cannot  see  that  it  shuts  out  the  conjecture.   Huge, 
232,  declares  this  statement  of  the  Historic  destitute  of  historical  credibility. 

3  In  the  Historie  Columbus  is  credited  with  having  suggested  the  appeal  to  the 


THE  DEMARCATION  LINE  197 

prompt  action  to  be  necessary.  Apparently  King  John  took 
some  definite  action  to  formulate  and  maintain  his  claim,  for 
Raynaldus  states  that  a  contention  arose  between  the  sove 
reigns  of  Castile  and  Portugal  over  the  new  realm.1 

Further,  the  instructions  given  to  the  Spanish  ambassador 
to  the  Pope,  as  Herrera  reports  them,  are  quite  explicit  in 
stating  that  the  discoveries  had  been  made  without  the  slight 
est  encroachment  on  the  possessions  of  Portugal.2  It  was 
also  stated  that  some  learned  men  were  of  opinion  that  by 
reason  of  the  admiral  having  taken  possession  of  the  new 
countries,  there  was  no  need  of  the  Pope's  confirmation  or 
donation,  yet  as  obedient  children  to  the  Holy  See  and  pious 
princes  their  Catholic  Majesties  desired  his  Holiness  to  grant 
them  the  lands  already  discovered  or  that  should  be  discov 
ered.  The  Bull  was  issued  with  the  consent  of  the  whole 
Sacred  College.3  4 

Traces  of  this  contention  between  Portugal  and  the  Span 
ish  sovereigns  are  to  be  found  in  the  Bull  of  May  3,  1493, 
of  which  the  following  are  the  essential  points. 

After  briefly  reciting  the  zeal  of  the  Catholic  sovereigns 

Pope  :  "  Per  piu  chiaro  e  giusto  titolo  delle  quali  di  subito  i  re  catolici  per  consig- 
lio  dell'  ammiraglio  procacciarono  di  haver  dal  sommo  pontefice  1'  approbation  e 
donatione  della  conquista  di  tutte  le  dette  Indie."  Historie,  etc.,  ch.  xlii. 

1  The  statement  introduces  the  text  of  the  Bull  of  May  3,  1493,  and  may  have 
been  based  on  documents  in  the  Papal  Archives  :  "  Exorta  vero  mox  post  Chris- 
tophori  Columbi  reditum  lis  est  inter  Castellanum  et  Lusitanum  Keges  de  Oceani 
novique  orbis  imperio ;  nam  Lusitanus  inventas  a  Columbo  insulas  ad  se  spectare 
conteudit,  negabat  vero  Castellanus,  etc."    Raynaldus,  Annales  Eccles.,  Tom.  XIX, 
420. 

2  Herrera,  Historia  General,  Decade  I,  Lib.  II,  ch.  iv.    Harrisse  questions  this. 
Dip.  Hist.,  37. 

8  Herrera,  Ibid. 

4  Harrisse  found  in  the  Archives  of  the  Frari  at  Venice  the  letter  which  Alex 
ander  VI.  sent  with  the  Bulls  on  the  17th  of  May,  1493,  to  Francis  de  Spratz,  the 
nuncio  at  the  court  of  Spain.  It  refers  to  several  documents,  but  all  it  says  of 
the  Demarcation  Bull  is  the  following  :  ''  Praeterea  aliud  breve  super  concessione 
dominii  et  bonarum  illarum  nuper  ab  hominibus  Regiis  inventarum  per  nos  facta 
prefatis  Regibus."  Bibliotheca  Vetusta  Americana,  Additions,  2. 

Raynaldus,  XIX,  421,  §  19,  prints  the  letter  of  the  Pope  to  Ferdinand  and  Isa 
bella  accompanying  the  Bulls.  It  is  dated  May  3,  and  calls  attention  to  the  ex 
isting  rights  of  Portugal.  These  of  course  were  specified  in  the  Bull  of  May  4. 


198  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

in  extending  the  gospel,  which  was  signally  shown  by  their 
promotion  of  the  voyage  of  Columbus,1  and  enjoining  upon 
them  perseverance  in  the  work,  the  Pope  grants  them  full 
possession  of  all  lands  discovered  and  to  be  discovered,  which 
are  not  under  the  dominion  of  Christian  princes.  "  Further, 
because  some  of  the  kings  of  Portugal  have  acquired  rights 
in  parts  of  Africa  through  the  Apostolic  See,  we  grant  you 
and  your  successors  exactly  the  same  rights  just  as  fully  as 
if  here  expressed  in  detail."2  It  is  clear  from  this  passage 
that  King  John's  attitude,  and  back  of  that,  the  earlier 
papal  Bulls  to  Portugal,  were  the  occasion  of  this  appeal  to 
the  Pope. 

In  this  first  Bull  there  is  no  reference  to  any  dividing  line. 
The  Spaniards  can  discover  and  hold  any  lands  hitherto  un 
known  and  not  in  the  possession  of  a  Christian  prince. 

But  no  sooner  was  this  Bull  promulgated  than  it  was 
superseded  by  another  in  which  the  unlimited  grants  and 
the  whole  passage  of  some  twenty  lines,  referring  to  the  pre 
vious  grants  to  Portugal  and  bestowing  the  same  rights  on 
Spain  in  the  newly  discovered  lands,  were  omitted.  Hum- 
boldt  remarked  that  only  the  Papal  Archives  could  reveal 
the  secret  of  that  change  in  twenty-four  hours.3  There  is 
little  reason  now  to  expect  light  from  IFat  quarter.4 

It  is  possible  that  when  the  Bull  of  May  3  appeared  the 
ambassador  or  some  representative  of  King  John  protested, 
and  declared  that  the  rights  of  the  king  of  Portugal  were 

1  "  Dilectum  filium  Christophorum  Colurabura,  virum  utique  dignum  et  pluri- 
mum  commenclandum,  ac  tanto  negotio  aptum." 

2  A  condensed  paraphrase.     The  original  is  extended  and  emphatic. 

The  Bull  is  printed  in  Navarrete,  Coleccion  de  los  Viajes  y  descubrimientos, 
II,  23-27.  The  passage  cited  occurs  on  p.  26. 

3  Kritische  Untersuchunyen,  (Ideler's  translation  of  the  Examen  Critique)  II,  37. 

4  Harrisse,  Bibliotheca  Americana  Vetusta,  2,  says  :  "  Whilst  in  Rome  we  vainly 
endeavored  to  discover  diplomatic  documents  relating  to  the  difficulties  which 
arose  between  Spain  and  Portugal  at  the  time  of  the  discovery  of  America.   Father 
Augustin  Theiner  wrote  afterwards  to  us  :  '  Je  n'ai  pas  manque  de  parcourir  dans 
les  archives  secretes  du  Vatican  les  registres  originAUX  d' Alexander  VI,  pour  voir 
s'il  y  avait  d'autres  pieces  relatives  qui  auraieut  pu  echapper  a  1' attention  de 
Rayualdi  mais  je  n'ai  rien  trouve." 


THE  DEMARCATION  LINE  199 

based  on  decrees  and  that  they  must  be  respected,  and  not 
obscured  or  diminished.1  It  seems  more  likely,  however, 
that  the  protest  issued  from  the  representatives  of  Ferdinand 
and  Isabella  who  pressed  for  a  delimitation  of  the  Spanish 
possessions  from  the  Portuguese  to  avoid  future  contests.2 

By  the  new  Bull  of  May  4,3  a  line  was  to  be  drawn  from 
the  North  to  the  South  Pole,  one  hundred  leagues  west  and 
south  of  any  one  of  the  islands  known  as  the  Azores  and  Cape 
Verd  Islands.4  All  lands  discovered  and  to  be  discovered  to 

1  Gomara  asserts  that  King  John  had  asked  for  a  Bull :  "  Hizo  gran  sentimi- 
ento  el  Hey  don  Juan  segundo  de  tal  nombre  en  Portugal  quaudo  leyo  la  bula  y 
douacion  del  Papa,  auuq  sus  embaxadores  lo  avian  suplicado  assi  a  su  Santidad." 
Gomara,  I,  leaf  142,  obverse.    Further,  according  to  Gomara,  Ferdinand  and  Isa 
bella  despatched  a  courier  to  Rome,  but  the  negotiations  were  carried  on  by  their 
ambassadors  at  Home,  "  y  sus  embaxadores  que  pocas  meses  antes  avian  ydo  a  dar 
el  para  bieu,  y  obediencia  al  Papa  Alexaudro  Sexto  seguu  usauca  de  todos  los 
Principes  Christianos,  le  hablaron  y  dieron  las  Cartas  del  rey  y  reyna  con  la  re- 
lacion  de  Colon,"  Gomara,  I,  leaves  29  and  30.     Now  John  II.  of  Portugal,  in 
1492,  had  sent  the  Commendador  Mor  d'  Aviz  D.  Pedro  da  Silva  as  an  ambassador 
on  the  death  of  Innocent  VIII,  and  to  present  his  obedience  to  Alexander  VI. 
Santarem,  Relacoes  Diplomaticas,  III,  162.     If  the  Spanish  special  ambassadors 
remained  until  May,  1493,  it  is  not  unlikely  that  the  Portuguese  representative  did 
likewise. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  as  the  Portuguese  rights  extended  east  "  ad  In- 
dos,"  and  embraced  lands  not  yet  found,  and  as  the  new  lands  were  supposed  to 
be  the  Indies,  the  grant  of  May  3  was  in  downright  conflict  with  the  earlier  ones 
to  Portugal. 

2  This  is  the  view  of  Harrisse  and  Dawson.     See  Diplomatic  History,  27-39, 
and  Dawson's  Essay,  484  ff.    Raynaldus  says  of  the  Bull  of  May  4  :  "  Tertio  dip- 
lomate  Alexander  ad  contraversias,  quae  inter  Castellanos  ac  Lusitanos  oboriri 
possent  dum  classibus  Oceanum  sulcabant,  dirimendas  Indias  orientales  occiden- 
talesque  discrevit."      Tomus,  xix,  421.     The  possibility  of  disputes  might  have 
suggested  itself  to  the  Pope. 

The  second  Bull  of  May  3  I  have  not  discussed.  It  was  a  brief  grant  to  Spain 
of  the  same  rights  for  her  discoveries  which  had  been  conferred  on  Portugal  for 
hers.  The  rights  of  Portugal  are  there  summarized.  The  Latin  text  and  Eng- 
lish  translation  of  this  Bull  are  printed  by  Dawson.  Harrisse  also  gives  a  trans 
lation  of  it  on  pp.  20-24  of  his  Diplomatic  History. 

3  Printed  in   full  in  Fiske's  Discovery  of  America,  II,  580-593,  with  Eichard 
Eden's  translation.     It  is  also  in  Navarrete,  Calvo's  Recueil,  Poore's  Constitutions 
and  Charters,  and  Dawson.     Besides  Eden's  translation  there  is  one  in  the  Eng 
lish  edition  of  Sportono's  Codice  diplomatic  Colombo- Americano  and  in  Dawson. 
Eden's  translation  is  reproduced  in  Hart's  American  History  told  by  Contempora 
ries,  I,  40-43. 

"  Quae  linea  distet  a  qualibet  insularum,  quae  vulgariter  nuncupantur  de  los 


200  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

the  west  and  south  of  this  line  whether  toward  India  or  any 
other  direction,  not  in  the  possession  of  any  Christian  prince 
at  Christmas,  1492,  should  belong  exclusively  to  Spain.  No 
one  else  could  frequent  them  either  for  trade  or  any  other 
reason  without  special  permission  of  the  Spanish  sovereigns."1 
This  Bull  apparently  met  the  instructions  of  the  Spanish 
and  Portuguese  envoys,  but  it  did  not  satisfy  the  home 
governments. 

To  reach  the  Indies  was  the  prime  object  of  both  Spain  and 
Portugal.  The  Bull  of  Sixtus  IV.  to  Portugal  had  men 
tioned  the  Indies  by  name,  and  unless  Spain  received  a 
grant  to  all  parts  of  the  Indies  reached  by  sailing  west,  not 
yet  occupied  by  a  Christian  prince,  her  efforts  might  prove  in 
vain.  Probably  the  Pope  was  asked  to  remedy  this  defect, 
for  on  September  25,  1493,  he  issued  a  new  Bull  which  made 
the  full  rights  before  granted  apply  in  detail  to  all  lands 
already  found  or  that  shall  be  found  sailing  west  or  south, 
which  are  in  the  western,  or  southern,  or  eastern  regions, 
or  India.2  The  Spaniards  now  had  free  scope  for  their  west 
ern  expeditions.  There  is  no  hint  as  yet  of  a  demarcation 
line  on  the  other  side  of  the  globe.  That  King  John  was 
dissatisfied  with  the  Bulls  of  May  3  and  4  appears  from  the 
letter  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella  to  Columbus  of  September 
5,  1493.3  He  protested  at  Rome  that  their  Catholic  Maj- 

Azores  y  Cabo  Verde,  centum  leucis  versus  Occidentem  et  Meridiem."    The 
>  frcuxuAzores  and  the  Cape  Verd  Islands  were  supposed  to  be  in  the  same  longitude. 
What  is  meant  by  "  versus  Occidentem  et  Meridiem  "  has  puzzled  everybody. 
"  '  *  How  a  meridian  line  could  be  southwest  from  any  given  point  has  baffled  expla 
nation.     May  it  not  have  been  simply  a  confusion  of  thought  resulting  from  the 
fact  that  the  lands  discovered  by  Columbus  lay  to  the  south  of  west  from  Europe 
,-orthe  Azores,  and  that  the  Pope  evidently  thought  of  the  discoveries  as  to  be 
'  prosecuted  west  and  south  ?     With  this  thought  in  mind  he  had  used  the  terms 
"versus  Occidentem  et  Meridiem "  appropriately  a  few  lines  before.     The  ten 
dency  of  such  documents  to  formal  repetition,  combined  with  inadvertence  and 
this  idea  of  the  southwesterly  direction  of  the  new  lauds,  may  account  for  a 
repetition  that  makes  nonsense.  Ak 

1  This  lays  the  corner  stone  of  the  old  colonial  system. 

3  A   Spanish  translation  will  be  found  in  Navarrete,  II,  404-406.     Dawson 
gives  Solorzano's  Latin  translation  as  it  is  supposed  to  be  and  an  English  version. 
8  Navarrete,  II,  108. 


THE  DEMARCATION  LINE  201 

esties  broke  in  upon  his  limits,  but  the  Pope  replied  that  he 
had  drawn  a  boundary  line.1  After  the  Bull  of  September 
25  he  was  even  more  displeased.  Rumors  came  to  Spain 
that  he  had  despatched  an  expedition  to  the  New  World.2 
Envoys  were  sent  back  and  forth  and  it  was  learned  that 
he  objected  to  the  Spaniards  sailing  south  of  the  Canaries 
and  proposed  an  east  and  west  demarcation  line  on  that 
parallel.3 

King  John  would  not  submit  the  matter  to  arbitration,  and 
brought  heavy  pressure  to  bear  upon  the  Pope  to  make  a 
change,  but  in  vain;  apparently  the  trouble  would  have 
ended  in  war,  just  what  the  establishment  of  the  boundary 
was  designed  to  avoid,  had  not  the  flourishing  condition  of 
Spain  restrained  him.  He  particularly  protested  against 
being  confined  to  so  narrow  a  space  in  the  great  ocean  as 
be  bounded  by  a  line  only  100  leagues  west  of  his 
own  islands.4 

This  was  a  real  grievance.  Experience  had  shown  the 
Portuguese  pilots  that  a  direct  southerly  course  down  the 
African  coast  was  subject  to  delays  by  calms,  adverse  cur 
rents,  and  unfavorable  winds.  Vasco  de  Gama  recommended 
that  Cabral  on  his  voyage  to  India  in  1500  should  sail  south 
west  until  he  reached  the  latitude  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope, 
when  he  should  sail  due  east,  availing  himself  of  the  trade 
winds.  This  course  would  be  safer  and  quicker.5  The 

1  Herrera,  Dec.  I,  Lib.  II. 

2  Navarrete,  II,  109. 

3  Herrera,  Dec.  I,  Lib.  II.  ch.  viii. 

4  Munoz,  Historia  del  Nuevo  Mundo,  Lib.  IV,  cap.  xxviii. 

6  These  instructions  entitled  "  Esta  he  a  maneira  que  parece  a  Vasco  de  Gama 
que  deve  teer  Pedro  Alvarez  em  sua  yda,  prazendo  Nosso  Senhor/'were  first  pub 
lished  by  Varnhagen  from  the  Portuguese  Archives.  The  following  essential 
passage  is  given  on  p.  422  of  the  first  volume  of  his  Historia  Geral  do  Brazil  : 
"  E  se  ouverem  de  gynar,  seja  sobre  a  banda  do  sudueste,  e  tanto  que  neles  deer 
o  vento  escasso  devem  hyr  na  volta  do  mar  ate  meterem  o  Cabo  de  Booa  Espe- 
ran9a  em  leste  franco,  e  dy  em  diante  navegarem  segundo  Ihe  servyr  o  tempo,  e 
m'ais  ganharem,  porque  como  forem  nadyta  parajem  nam  Ihe  myngoara  tempo, 
com  ajuda  de  nosso  senhor,  com  que  cobrem  o  dito  Cabo,"  quoted  from  D'Avezac, 
Considerations  Ge'ographigues  sur  I'Histoire  du  Bre'sil,  Note  D,  Bulletin  de  la  Soc. 
de  Geog.,  Aout  et  Septembre,  1857,  246.  As  no  such  document  can  now  be 


202  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

Spanish  sovereigns  felt  it  safe  to  concede  something,  for 
Columbus  had  estimated  the  distance  from  the  Canaries  to 
the  new  lands  as  something  over  900  leagues.  Three  pleni 
potentiaries  from  each  kingdom  met  at  Tordesillas,  and  June 
7,  1494,  signed  the  treaty  of  that  name.  The  new  divid 
ing  line  was  drawn  370  leagues1  west  of  the  Cape  Verd 
Islands,  a  point  according  to  their  information  almost  ex 
actly  halfway  between  the  Cape  Verd  Islands  and  the  new 
discoveries. 

Within  ten  months  each  party  must  despatch  one  or  two 
caravels  which  should  meet  at  the  Grand  Canary ;  along  with 
them  should  be  sent  pilots,  astrologers,  and  mariners;  thence 
all  should  proceed  to  the  Cape  Verd  Islands  and  measure  off 
by  leagues  or  degrees  370  leagues.  If  the  line  ran  through 

found  in  the  Portuguese  Archives,  Harrisse  boldly  declares  these  instructions 
spurious.  Discovery  of  North  America,  683,  n.  In  Alguns  Documentos,  however, 
there  are  fragments  of  a  series  of  very  detailed  instructions  to  Cabral  in  regard 
to  the  management  of  the  business  of  the  expedition  when  he  should  reach  India. 
See  pp.  97  ff.  If  portions  of  this  body  of  instructions  have  become  lost  the  absence 
of  the  original  manuscript  of  the  instructions  printed  by  Varnhageu  from  the 
Archives  is  not  conclusive  against  their  authenticity.  They  may  well  have 
formed  the  first  part  of  the  extant  instructions  the  beginning  of  which  is 
missing. 

The  discovery  of  America  was  destined  to  follow  as  a  consequence  of  the 
Portuguese  voyages,  even  if  Columbus  had  never  lived.  The  authenticity  of 
these  instructions  might  be  given  up  without  weakening  that  conclusion. 
Whether  Cabral  discovered  Brazil  in  consequence  of  these  instructions  or  by 
accident  does  not  matter.  A  glance  at  a  map  of  ocean  currents  will  show  that 
either  such  instructions  or  such  an  accident  would  be  inevitable  if  voyaging  down 
the  coast  of  Africa  were  kept  up.  The  true  glory  of  Columbus  lies  in  his  persist 
ence  and  resolution  in  acting  upon  his  intellectual  convictions.  It  is  true  he  was 
misled  by  miscalculations  of  the  size  of  the  earth.  Every  one  else,  however,  had 
the  same  supposed  facts,  but  Columbus  was  ready  to  act  on  them,  and  had  they 
been  true,  how  much  simpler  to  sail  due  west  3,000  miles  than  around  Africa 
12,000  to  15,000  miles  ? 

1  John  II.  had  asked  for  200  leagues  more.  "  Quexose  de  los  Reyes  Catolicas 
que  le  atajavan  el  curso  de  sus  descubrimientos,  y  riquezas.  Reclamo  de  la  bula, 
pidiendo  las  otras  trezientas  leguas  mas  al  poniente."  Gomara,  I,  leaf  1 42,  obv. 
Gomara  adds  that  Ferdinand  and  Isabella  out  of  generosity,  and  because  King 
John  was  a  relative,  with  the  approval  of  the  Pope,  gave  him  two  hundred  and 
seventy  more  leagues  at  Tordesillas.  Whether  "  con  acuerdo  del  Papa  "  refers 
to  an  official  approval  of  Alexander's  that  I  have  not  found,  or  merely  to  a 
private  consent,  or  to  the  Bull  of  Julius  II.,  it  is  difficult  to  say. 


THE  DEMARCATION  LINE  203 

any  island,  a  tower  was  to  be  erected  to  mark  it.1  This 
treaty  was  to  be  perpetual  and  the  sanction  of  the  Pope  was 
to  be  asked  for  it.2  But  Alexander  VI.  made  no  further 
effort  to  satisfy  both  sides.  The  treaty  was  also  despatched 
to  Columbus  at  the  earliest  opportunity  to  secure  his  assent 
as  it  affected  his  privileges,  but  he  never  assented  to  it  and 
always  relied  upon  the  original  line  in  preferring  his  claims.  3( 
Nor  did  the  new  arrangement  receive  papal  sanction  until 
the  Bull  of  Julius  II.,  obtained  at  the  instance  of  King  Em 
manuel  of  Portugal,  was  granted  January  24, 1506. 4  The  last 
Bull  on  these  matters  is  that  of  Leo  X.  on  November  3,  1514. 
During  the  year  he  had  received  a  glowing  account  of 
Portugal's  eastern  discoveries  and  a  splendid  embassy  from 
the  King  Emmanuel  with  presents  of  eastern  products.5 
In  response  he  issued  a  Bull  filling  forty-five  printed 
pages  which  included  and  confirmed  all  the  previous  Bulls 
giving  Portugal  rights  in  the  east.  More  than  that  it  grants 
to  Portugal  all  past  and  future  conquests  and  discoveries, 
not  only  from  Cape  Bojador  to  the  Indians  but  everywhere 

1  The  first  proposition  to  establish  "  a  meridian  in  a  permanent  manner  by 
marks  graven  on  rocks,  or  by  the  erection  of  towers."     Humboldt,  Cosmos,  II, 
277,  n. 

2  The  treaty  is  printed  in  Navarrete,  II,  130-143,  in  Calvo,  Recueil  Complet 
de  Traites  de  I'Ame'rique  Latine,  VI,  19-38,  and  in  Alguns  Documentos,  80-90.    In 
Cairo's  text  the  spelling  is  modernized.     The  treaty  went  into  full  operation 
June  20,  1494.     Up  to  June  20,  any  lands  found  between  250  and  370  leagues 
west  of  the  Cape  Verd  Islands  were  to  belong  to  Spain. 

3  See  the  Discovery  of  North  America,  56,  and  Diplomatic  History  of  America,  \ 
80-84.     Harrisse   quotes  from  Columbus'  deed  of  entail  (Mayor azgo)  of  1498. 
Navarrete,  II,  226,  and  from  his  will,  1505,  Ibid.,  II,  313.     For  translations,  see 
Ford's  Writings  of  Columbus,  83  and  244.     In  these  documents  the  treaty  of  Tor- 
desillas  is  entirely  ignored.     The  change  in  the  line  deprived  Columbus  of  his 
royalty  of  one-tenth  of  the  products  of  Brazil.     See  the  Contract  in  Navarrete, 
11,7. 

4  Printed  in  Alguns  Documentos,  142-43. 

5  See  Roscoe's  Leo  X.,  I,  428-32;  and  for  the  original  correspondence,  pp.  521- 
26.     The  reference  is  to  Bonn's  large  edition,  1846.     The  Bulls  of  Julius  II.  and 
Leo  X.  were  secured  by  Portugal  and  given  in  return  for  homage  to  the  Pope. 
Mr.  Fiske  quotes  from  a  small  volume  entitled  Obedientia  potentissimi  Lusitaniae 
regis  —  ad  Julium  Pont.  Max.,  Rome,  1505.     The  newly  found  lands  were  laid  at 
the  Pope's  feet.    "  Accipe  tandem  orbein  ipsum  terrarum.   Deus  eiiim  noster  es." 
Discovery  of  America,  I,  458. 


204  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

else  even  in  parts  then  unknown.1  Curiously  enough  no 
reference  is  made  to  Alexander's  Demarcation  Bulls. 

The  second  part  of  my  subject,  the  determination  of  the 
line,  was  beset  with  difficulties.  The  primary  difficulty  lay 
in  the  fact,  that  if  the  line  ever  should  be  taken  to  determine 
disputed  boundaries  it  would  have  to  be  located  with  exact 
ness,  and  to  measure  longitude  with  accuracy  was  entirely 
beyond  the  science  of  the  time.2 

There  were  no  chronometers;  the  modern  chronometer 
dates  from  1748.  Their  astronomical  tables  were  very  defec 
tive,  and  the  very  first  step,  agreement  as  to  length  of  a 
degree  on  a  great  circle,  could  not  be  reached,  as  the  first 
accurate  measurement  was  not  made  until  1669.  Probably 
these  difficulties  did  not  exist  for  Pope  Alexander. 

Humboldt  suggested  that  the  Demarcation  Line  was  placed 
100  leagues  west  of  the  Azores  in  order  that  it  might  coin 
cide  with  the  meridian  of  magnetic  no-variation,  whose 
existence  Columbus  had  discovered  on  his  first  voyage. 
Columbus  noted  other  physical  changes  100  leagues  west  of 
the  Azores.  On  this  hypothesis,  it  would  always  have  been 
possible  for  the  mariner  to  know  when  he  crossed  the  De 
marcation  Line.  Here  would  have  been  a  genuine  "scientific 
frontier."3  But  the  line  was  moved  and  thus  a  dispute 

1  Bullarum  Collectio,  50,  "  tarn  a  Capitibus  de  Bojador  et  de  Naon,  usque  ad 
Indos,  quam  etiam  ubicumque,  et  in  quibuscumque  partibus,  etiam  nostris  tem- 
poribus  forsan  ignotis."     This  Bull  really  supersedes  the  Demarcation  Bull  and 
practically  simply  establishes  the  validity  of  the  rights  of  discovery  and  conquest. 
It  is  not  referred  to  by  any  Spanish  authorities  so  far  as  I  have  noted. 

2  Peschel's  Die  The  Hung  der  Erde  Unter  Papst  Alexander  VI.  und  Julius  II., 
Leipzig,  1871,  discusses,  in  an  interesting  manner,  the  scientific  difficulties  and 
the  progress  of  geodesy. 

3  Humboldt,  Untersuchnngen,  II,  37.     This  hypothesis  is  accepted   by  Pawson 
as  amounting  to  a  "  certainty,"  p.  493.     Harrisse,  on  the  other  hand,  declares  it 
"  scarcely  admissible."     Diplomatic  History,  38.     The  evidence  is  against  Hum 
boldt  and  Dawson.     Columbus  first  records  the  variation  of  the  needle  in  his 
journal  under  date  of  September  17,  when,  according  to  the  sum  of  the  distances 
traversed  each  day,  he  had  gone  at  least  350  leagues  west  of  Gomera  in  the 
Canaries.    As  the  middle  of  the  Azores  lies  about  five  degrees  west  of  Gomera, 
the  spot  where  the  variation  of  the  compass  was  first  noticed  would  be  from  250 
to  270  leagues  west  of  the  Azores,  according  to  the  varying  estimates  of  the 


THE  DEMARCATION  LINE  205 

opened  which  Contarini,  in  1525,  believed  would  never  be 
settled.1 

Ferdinand  and  Isabella  took  up  the  matter  promptly.  The 
eminent  cosmographer  Jayme  Ferrer  was  asked  in  August, 
1493,  to  bring  his  charts  and  instruments  to  Barcelona.  In 
February,  1495,  he  sent  on  a  rude  method  of  determination.2 
In  April  of  that  year  the  convention  of  pilots,  astrologers, 
and  mariners  provided  for  in  the  treaty  of  Tordesillas  was 
appointed  for  July.  After  agreeing  upon  a  method  of  cal 
culation  each  party  was  to  proceed  to  the  determination  of 
the  line.  If  either  party  found  land  where  the  line  ought  to 
fall,  word  was  to  be  despatched  to  the  other,  who  within 
ten  months  after  receiving  word  must  send  to  mark  it.3  All 
maps  made  thereafter  must  contain  the  line.4 

The  first  appearance   of  the  Demarcation  Line  on  a  map 

length  of  a  degree  made  by  the  geographers  of  the  day.  The  estimates  ranged 
roughly  from  16  to  20  leagues  to  the  degree.  It  was  only  in  the  account  of  his 
third  voyage,  1498,  that  Columbus  says  that  in  his  voyage  to  the  Indies  he  noticed 
changes  in  the  sea  and  sky  and  the  variation  of  the  needle  one  hundred  leagues 
•west  of  the  Azores  (Navarrete,  I,  254).  The  discrepancy  is  not  strange,  perhaps, 
in  view  of  the  lack  of  means  for  measuring  longitude,  but  the  location  of  these 
phenomena  —  exactly  100  leagues  west  of  the  Azores — in  1498  looks  a  little 
like  an  afterthought.  Possibly  Columbus  stretched  a  point  to  bring  forward 
evidence  in  favor  of  the  original  line.  Again,  if  the  distance  of  100  leagues  from 
the  Azores  was  chosen  for  scientific  reasons,  why  do  we  hear  of  no  objection  to 
the  removal  of  the  line  to  370  leagues  west  of  the  Cape  de  Verde  Islands,  which 
would  sacrifice  these  scientific  advantages  "?  The  distance  100  leagues  may  have 
occurred  to  the  Pope  as  a  reasonable  margin  of  protection  to  Portugal,  or  it  may 
have  been  adopted  from  the  suggestion  of  Ferdinand  and  Isabella.  Herrera  tells 
us  that  the  ambassador  sent  to  the  Pope  in  the  first  instance  received  the  follow 
ing  instructions  :  "  The  ambassador  was  directed  to  let  him  know,  that  the  said 
discovery  had  been  made,  without  encroaching  upon  the  crown  of  Portugal,  the 
admiral  having  been  positively  commanded  by  their  Highnesses  not  to  come 
within  100  leagues  of  the  mine,  nor  of  Guinea,  or  any  other  part  belonging  to 
the  Portugueses,  which  he  had  done  accordingly."  Dec.  I,  Lib.  II,  ch.  iv.,  John 
Stevens'  version. 

1  Relazione  di'  Gasparo  Contarini,  Alberi,  1  ser.  II,  48. 

2  Navarrete,  II,  98.    Ferrer  decided  that  the  370  leagues  were  equivalent  to 
23  degrees  on  the  equator. 

3  Nothing  seems  to  have  come  of  this  proposed  convention.     Herrera  says  of 
the  agreement  of  April,  "  It  does  not  appear  to  have  been  performed."    Yet  see 
Harrisse's  notes  90  and  92,  Diplomatic  History. 

*  Navarrete,  II,  170-173. 


206  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

that  is  preserved  is  on  the  so-called  Cantino  Map,  of  1502, 
where  it  cuts  off  the  portion  of  the  newly  discovered  Brazil, 
east  of  the  mouth  of  the  Amazon,  as  belonging  to  Portugal.1 

The  Demarcation  Line  next  plays  a  part  of  controlling 
importance  in  the  history  of  the  first  voyage  around  the 
world.  The  most  telling  argument  that  Magellan  advanced 
in  favor  of  his  expedition,  and  as  it  seems  to  me,  beyond 
doubt  the  decisive  one  with  Charles  V.,  was  that  the  Moluc 
cas  or  the  Spice  Islands,  the  pearl  of  the  precious  Indies,  lay 
within  the  Spanish  half  of  the  world.  This  appears  clearly 
in  the  account  of  Maximilianus  Transylvanus,  a  source  of 
the  highest  value  on  this  point,  as  he  was  son-in-law  to  a 
brother  of  Christopher  Haro.2  He  tells  us  that  Magellan 
and  Christopher  Haro  an  India  merchant  having  been  un 
justly  treated  by  the  king  of  Portugal,  came  to  Spain ;  "  and 
they  both  showed  Csesar 3  that  it  was  not  yet  quite  sure 
whether  Malacca  was  within  the  confines  of  the  Spaniards  or 
the  Portuguese,  because,  as  yet,  nothing  of  the  longitude  had 
been  clearly  proved,  yet  it  was  quite  plain  that  the  Great 
Gulf  and  the  people  of  Sinae  lay  within  the  Spanish  bound 
ary.  This,  too,  was  held  to  be  most  certain,  that  the  islands 
which  they  call  the  Moluccas,  in  which  all  spices  are  pro 
duced,  and  are  thence  exported  to  Malacca,  lay  within  the 
Spanish  western  division,  and  that  it  was  possible  to  sail 
there ;  and  that  spices  could  be  brought  thence  to  Spain  more 
easily,  and  at  less  expense  and  cheaper,  as  they  came  direct 
from  their  native  place."4  According  to  Correa,  Magellan 
told  the  officials  of  the  House  of  Commerce  in  Seville,  that 

1  Harrisse  calculated  the  longitude  of  the  line  on  this  map  where  it  is  labelled, 
"  Este  he  omarco  dantre  caatella  y  Portuguall,"  as  62°  30'  west  of  Paris.    Winsor, 
Narrative,  and  Critical  History,  II,  108.     Mr.  Winsor  gives  a  sketch  of  the  map. 

2  Through  his  relationship  to  Haro  and  the  fact  that  he  heard  the  reports  of 
the  survivors  of  Magellan's  expedition  he  had  every  facility  for  getting  at  the 
facts.     See  Guillemard's  Magellan,  140. 

s  Charles  V. 

4  Letter  of  Max.  Transylvanus  to  the  Archbishop  of  Salzburg,  quoted  from 
the  version  given  by  Lord  Stanley  in  his  First  Voyage  Round  the  World,  181. 
This  statement  quite  likely  came  from  Haro  himself.  A  Spanish  version  of 
Max.  Transylvanus'  letter  is  in  Navarrete,  IV,  249-284. 


THE  DEMARCATION  LINE  207 

Malacca  and  Maluco,  the  "  islands  in  which  cloves  grow,  be 
longed  to  the  Emperor  on  account  of  the  Demarcation  Line," 
and  that  he  could  prove  it.  They  replied  that  they  knew  he 
was  speaking  the  truth,  but  it  could  not  be  helped  because 
the  Emperor  "could  not  navigate  through  the  sea  within  the 
demarcation  of  the  king  of  Portugal.  Magellan  said  to 
them :  4  If  you  would  give  me  ships  and  men  I  would  show 
you  navigation  to  those  parts,  without  touching  any  sea  or 
land  of  the  king  of  Portugal.5"1 

As  has  been  already  remarked,  to  get  at  the  land  of  spices 
was  the  prime  object  of  all  the  age  of  discovery.  As  the 
papal  grants  to  Portugal  of  the  exclusive  use  of  the  eastern 
route  to  the  Indies  made  it  an  object  for  Ferdinand  and 
Isabella  to  promote  the  projects  of  Columbus  to  reach  the 
land  of  spices  and  thus  led  to  the  discovery  of  America,  so 
the  establishment  of  the  Demarcation  Line,  coupled  with  the 
same  unfailing  attraction  exerted  by  the  land  of  spices,  after 
the  new  world  was  found  not  to  be  the  Indies,  led  Charles 
V.  to  welcome  Magellan's  plan  to  find  an  all  Spanish  route 
to  these  precious  islands  and  to  prove  that  they  belonged  to 
Spain,  and  thus  opened  the  way  for  another  of  the  greatest 
exploits  in  the  history  of  the  race.2  The  value  of  the  spice 
trade  and  the  consequent  strength  of  this  inducement  may 

1  Quoted  from  the  translation  of  the  passages  of  the  Lendas  da  India,  II, 
ch.  xiv  (Hakluyt  Soc.  ed.),  given  by  Lord  Stanley,  First  Voyage,  244-46.     Com 
pare  also  the  "  Contract  and  Agreement  made  by  the  King  of  Castile  with  Fernan 
Magellan,"  which  is  given  in  abridgment  in  Lord  Stanley's  First  Voyage,  29. 
"  Since  you  Fernando  de  Magallanes  .  .  .  wish  to  render  us  a  great  service  in 
the  limits  which  belong  to  us  in  the  ocean  within  the  bounds  of  our  demarcation. 
.  .  .  Firstly,  that  you  are  to  go  with  good  luck  to  discover  the  part  of  the  ocean 
within  our  limits  and  demarcation.  .  .  .  Also,  you  may  discover  in  any  of  those 
parts  what  has  not  yet  been  discovered,  so,  that  you  do  not  discovei  nor  do  any 
thing  in  the  demarcation  and  limits  of  the  most  serene  King  of  Portugal,  my 
very  dear  and  well  beloved  Uncle  and  brother,  nor  to  his  prejudice  ;  but  only  within 
the  limits  of  our  demarcation."    The  original  document  is  in  Navarrete,  TV,  116- 
121. 

2  The  only  practicable  way  to  test  the  Spanish  claim  to  the  Moluccas  was  to 
reach  them  from  the  west,  for  "  they  considered  it  a  very  doubtful  and  dangerous 
enterprise  to  go  through  the  limits  of  the  Portuguese,  and  so  to  the  east."    Max. 
Transylvanus,  in  Lord  Stanley's  First  Voyage,  188. 


208  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

be  gathered  from  these  facts.  Navarrete  prints  a  document 
of  the  year  1536  which  estimated  that  an  annual  income  of 
600,000  ducats  could  be  derived  from  the  Moluccas  if  a 
regular  factory  were  established  there  for  the  development 
of  the  spice  trade.1  The  value  of  the  gold  and  silver  that 
Spain  derived  yearly  from  America  is  variously  estimated, 
but  the  contemporary  estimates  fall  short  of  this  estimated 
value  of  the  spice  trade.2  The  "Victoria,"  the  surviving 
ship  of  Magellan's  expedition,  reached  Seville  September  8, 
1522,  having  justified  all  the  heroic  leader's  assertions  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  Spanish  authorities.3 

The  question  of  the  proprietorship  of  the  Moluccas  now 
became  a  pressing  one,  for  Portugal  had  no  intention  of 
allowing  Spain  to  steal  in  at  the  back  door  of  her  treasure 
house.  February  4,  1523,  Charles  V.  sent  two  ambassadors 
to  the  king  of  Portugal  to  propose  an  expedition  to  deter 
mine  the  line  of  Demarcation  and  in  the  mean  while  the  ob- 

1  Navarrete,  V,  165. 

2  Gomara,  Historia  General  de  las  Indias,  Antwerp  ed.,  1554, 1,  leaf  300,  states 
that  in  the  years,  1492-1552,  the  Spaniards  had  got  over  $60,000,000  of  gold  and 
silver  from  America.     Contariui,  in  1525,  estimated  the  annual  income  of  Spain 
from  the  mines  of  gold  and  silver  at  500,000  ducats.    He  says  of  the  king  :  "  Ha 
poi  il  re  dell'  oro,  che  si  cava  dall'  Indie,  venti  per  cento,  che  pub  montare  circa  a 
cento  mila  ducati  all'  anno."    Relazioni  degli  Ambasciatori  Veneti,  Alberi,  1st  ser., 

II,  42.     Contarini  estimated  Charles'  revenue  from  his  low  country  provinces  at 
140,000  ducats  a  year.   Ibid.,  25.    The  value  of  a  ducat  was  about  -$2.34.    Hum- 
boldt  estimated  the  average  annual  supply  of  the  precious  metals  from  America 
was,  1492-1500,  $250,000  ;  1500-1545,  $3,000,000.     Essai  sur  la  Nouvelle  Espagne, 

III,  428,  second  edition,  from  McCulloch's  Commercial  Dictionary,  art.  "  Precious 
Metals,"  ed.  of  1869.     According  to  Soetbeer's  researches,  the  annual  production 
from  1493  to  1520  was  silver,  $2,115,000;  gold,  $4,045,500.     From  1521  to  1544, 
silver,  $4,059,000 ;  gold,  $4,994,000.      Nasse,  in  Schoenberg,  Ilandbuch  der  Polit- 
Oekonomie,  I,  361  (1885). 

8  The  cargo  consisted  of  533  quintals  of  cloves  which  cost  213  ducats.  Accord 
ing  to  Crawford  the  quintal  was  worth  at  that  time  in  London  336  ducats,  making 
the  value  of  the  cargo  over  100,000  ducats.  The  cost  of  the  expedition  was  only 
22,000  ducats.  Thus  Peschel,  ZeitaUer  der  Entdeckungen,  644,  n.  4.  Guillemard, 
Life  of  Magellan,  310,  puts  the  value  of  the  cargo  at  about  one  quarter  of  Peschel's 
estimate.  In  either  case  the  value  of  the  spice  trade  is  vividly  illustrated.  Appar 
ently  Guillemard  takes  too  low  a  value  for  the  maravedi.  In  the  sale  of  the 
Moluccas  it  was  stipulated  that  the  ducats  be  equivalent  to  375  maravedis. 
Navarrete,  IV,  393. 


THE  DEMARCATION  LINE  209 

servance  of  a  closed  season  at  the  Moluccas.1  They  asserted 
the  Spanish  ownership  of  the  Moluccas.2  The  king  of  Portu 
gal  refused  the  terms  proposed. 

January  25,  1524,  plenipotentiaries  were  appointed  and  by 
February  19,  it  was  agreed  that  each  side  should  appoint 
three  astrologers  and  three  pilots  as  scientific  experts,  and 
three  lawyers  as  judges  of  documentary  proofs,  to  meet  in 
convention  in  March  on  the  boundary  of  Spain  and  Portugal 
between  Badajos  and  Yelves.  Meanwhile  neither  side 
should  send  vessels  to  the  Moluccas  until  the  end  of 
May.3 

At  this  famous  assemblage,  known  as  the  Badajos  Junta, 
we  find  among  the  Spanish  experts  Ferdinand  Columbus  and 
Sebastian  del  Cano  who  had  accompanied  Magellan,  and  as 
advisers,  Sebastian  Cabot  and  Juan  Vespucci,  the  nephew  of 
Amerigo. 

The  first  session  opened  April  11,  on  the  bridge  over  the 
Caya,  the  boundary  line,  and  thereafter  the  meetings  were 
held  alternately  in  Badajos  and  Yelves,  dragging  along  till 
May  31.  Even  the  street  urchins  followed  with  curious  eyes 
the  men  who  were  dividing  the  world.4 

1  Navarrete,  IV,  302-305. 

2  Oil  what  has-been  called^honer's  Globe,  of  1523,  more  exactly  the  Rosen- 
thai  Gores,  the  line  is  drawn  near  the  middle  of  the  Peninsula  of  Malacca. 
Nordenskiold  dates  these  gores  frtfm   1540.     Winsor,  Christopher  Columbus,  589, 
the  gores  are  reproduced  on  p.  590.     The  Demarcation  Line  is  drawn  as  the 
Spaniards  drew  it,  after  the  Badajos  Junta,  a  valid  argument  that  these  gores 
were  made  later  than  May,  1524. 

3  Navarrete,  IV,  320-326. 

4  "  Acontecio  que  passeando  se  un  dia  por  la  ribera  de  Guadiana  Erancisco  de 
Melo,  Diego  Lopes  de  Sequiera,  y  otros  de  aquellos  Portugueses,  les  pregunto 
un  nino  que  guardava  los  trapos,  que  su  madre  lavava,  si   eraii   ellos   los  que 
repartian  el  mundo  con  el  emperador,  y  como  le  respondieron  que  si,  alco  la 
camisa,  mostro  las  nalguillas,   y  dixo,  pues  echad  la  raya  por  aqui  en  medio. 
Cosa  fue  publica,  y  muy  reida  en  Badajos,  y  en  la  congregacion  de  los  mesmos 
repartidores."  Gomara,  I,  leaf  141,  reverse.     Gomara's  account  of  the  conference 
was  translated  by  Richard  Eden,  and  may  be  read  in  Edward  Arber's   First 
Three  English   Books  on  America,  271-274.     Hakluyt  moralizes  over   the  small 
boy's  jest :  "  But  what  wise  man  seeth  not  that  God  by  that  childe  laughed  them 
to  scorne,  and  made  them  rediculous  and  their  partition  in  the  eyes  of  the  world." 
"Discourse  concerning  Western  Planting"  Doc.  Hist.  Maine,  II,  141-42. 

14 


210  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL    CRITICISM 

The  lawyers  could  not  agree  as  to  priority  of  possession,1 
while  the  scientific  experts  could  not  agree  upon  the  longi 
tude  of  the  Moluccas  within  46  degrees,  one -eighth  of  the 
earth's  surface.  The  Spanish  judges  reported  the  Moluccas 
inside  their  line  by  thirty  degrees.2  Apart  from  the  insuper 
able  difficulties  of  calculating  the  longitude  exactly,  no 
agreement  could  be  reached  as  to  the  starting  point.  The 
Spaniards  asserted  that  the  measurement  ought  to  begin  at 
San  Antonio,  the  most  westerly  of  the  Cape  Verd  Islands, 
for,  as  the  line  had  been  moved  at  the  king  of  Portugal's 
request  and  not  so  far  west  by  thirty  degrees  as  he  had  de 
sired,  it  was  only  reasonable  to  take  the  westernmost  island. 
The  Portuguese  quibbled;  as  the  treaty  said  "islands  "and 
that  the  expedition  to  fix  the  line  should  sail  from  the  Cana 
ries  to  the  Cape  Verd  Islands,  the  only  starting  point  that 
fulfilled  the  conditions  was  the  meridian  passing  through  the 
two  islands  Sal  and  Buena  Vista,  which  were  first  encoun 
tered  in  coming  from  the  Canaries,  in  other  words  the  most 
easterly  of  the  group.  In  fact  the  Portuguese  were  in  a 
strait;  if  the  line  were  pushed  westward  they  might  lose  the 
Moluccas,  if  eastward  they  might  lose  Brazil.3  Their  policy 
was  obstruction  and  delay,  so  they  rejected  all  Spanish  maps 
and  proposed  four  astronomical  methods  of  determining  the 
longitude.  This  would  take  time. 

May  31,  Ferdinand  Columbus  read  the  decision  of  the 
Spanish  judges,  that  the  line  be  drawn  three  hundred  and 
seventy  leagues  west  of  San  Antonio  and  be  represented  on 
all  maps  made  thereafter.4  As  the  Spaniards  calculated  the 
longitude  they  thus  secured  not  only  the  Moluccas  but  also 

1  As  the  Pope's  Bull  provided  for  lands  "  to  be  found  "  as  well  as  for  those 
already  discovered  ("  inventas  et  inveniendas,  detectas,  et  detegendas  "),  it  sanc 
tioned  the  establishment  of  a  right  of  possession  by  discovery. 

2  Navarrete,  iv,  367. 

8  Gomara  says  the  Portuguese  realized  the  mistake  of  the  removal  of  the  line 
westward  by  the  treaty  of  Tordesillas.  I,  leaf  139,  seq.  Arber,  I,  274. 

4  The  line,  according  to  this  decision,  is  traced  on  the  map  of  1527  once  at 
tributed  to  Ferd.  Columbus,  and  also  on  the  map  of  1529.  See  Kohl's  Die  Beiden 
Aeltesten  General-Karten  von  Amerika.  In  Guillemard's  Magellan  there  is  a  re 
duction  of  the  map  of  1529. 


THE  DEMARCATION  LINE  211 

Sumatra,  while  Portugal  was  acknowledged  to  have  the  right 
ful  possession  of  Brazil  for  two  hundred  leagues  west  of  the 
eastern  extremity.1 

In  1526  another  vain  attempt  was  made  at  a  settlement, 
and  in  the  mean  time  war  between  the  representatives  of  the 
two  nations  had  broken  out  in  the  Moluccas.  By  1529  the 
two  royal  houses  had  become  united  by  a  double  marriage  and 
a  second  Spanish  expedition  had  been  unfortunate,  so  to 
settle  the  difficulties  Charles  V.  by  the  treaty  of  Saragossa 
gave  up  his  claim  to  the  Moluccas  to  Portugal  for  350,000 
ducats,  but  retained  the  right  of  redemption.2  On  the  other  ^ 
hand,  if  the  line  should  ever  be  accurately  fixed  and  the  W, 
Moluccas  be  found  within  Portugal's  division,  Spain  was  to 
repay  the  350,000  ducats.  Meanwhile  a  new  Demarcation 
Line,  more  accurately  described,  was  to  be  drawn  seventeen 
degrees  or  297*leagues  east  of  the  Moluccas.  The  Pope  was 
to  be  asked  to  sanction  this  treaty.3 

Spain  relinquished  the  Moluccas  but  retained  the  Philip- 
pines  which  were  then  of  no  value,  and  they  became  the 
western  extremity  of  their  Empire,  "las  Islas  del  poniente."* 
As  long  as  Spain  held  her  continental  colonies  in  the  New 
World  the  Philippines  were  in  Spanish  eyes  a  part  of 
America  and  in  their  commercial  relations  an  appendage  to 
New  Spain  or  Mexico.  In  1844  the  Philippines  were  trans- 

1  "  Conforms  a  esta  declaracion  se  marcan,  y  devan  marcar,  todos  los  globes 
y  mapas,  que  hazen  los  buenos  cosmografos,  y  maestros,  y  a  de  passar  poco  mas 
o  menos  la  raya  de  la  reparticion  del  nuevo  mundo  de  Indias  por  las  puntas  de 
Humos,  o  de  hue  Abrigo,  como  ya  en  atra  parte  dixe,  y  assi  parecera  muy  claro 
que  las  yslas  de  las  especias,  y  aim  la  de  Zamotra  caen  y  pertenecen  a  Castilla. 
Pero  cnpo-le  a  el  la  tierra,  que  llaman  del  Brasil,  donde  esta  el  Cabo  de  Sant 
Augustine.     La  qual  es  de  punta  de  Humos  a  punta  de  buen  Abrigo,  y  tiende 
costa  ocho  cientas  legues  norte  sur,  y  dozientas  por  algunas  partes  leste  oeste." 
Gomara,  I,  leaf  141,  reverse. 

2  Navarrete,  IV,  393. 

8  He  seems  to  have  done  so  :  "  Accordados  os  Reis  desta  maneira  derao  conta 
ao  Papa  Clemente  VII.  que  alem  de  o  approuvar  o  louvou  muito."  Colle^ao  de 
Noticias  para  a  Hist  e  Geog.  das  Na$oes  (Jltramarinas,  Lisboa,  1825,  III,  Parte  I. 
Noticia  do  Brazil,  7. 

4  To  the  Portuguese,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Azores  have  been  the  Western 
Islands,  and  the  Philippines  the  Eastern  Islands. 


212  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

ferred  to  the  eastern  hemisphere  by  dropping  from  the 
Manilan  calendar  the  31st  of  December.1  Before  that  change 
people  in  the  Philippines  had  lived  on  Spanish  time,  fifteen 
hours  slow,  and  the  day  was  dropped  or  added  in  the  voyage 
between  Hongkong  and  Manila  instead  of  at  the  meridian  of 
180 °0  Leaving  now  the  antipodes  we  may  return  to  the 
controversies  on  this  side  of  the  globe. 

After  the  Badajos  Junta  the  Spaniards  drew  the  line  about 
as  it  is  marked  on  the  maps  of  1527  and  1529,  or  roughly 
speaking  from  near  Para  to  a  point  about  one  hundred  miles 
east  of  Montevideo,  while  the  Portuguese  drew  it  from  the 
same  point  so  that  it  ran  parallel  for  a  part  of  its  course  with 
the  river  Parana,  Thus  the  region  now  occupied  by  the  most 
of  Uruguay  and  the  Argentine  States  of  Entre  Rios  and  Cor- 
rientes  was  disputed  territory. 

Both  estimates  gave  Portugal  far  more  than  she  was 
entitled  to  according  to  a  modern  scientific  determination 
which  makes  it  fall  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  miles  west 
of  Rio  de  Janeiro.2 

But  as  Spain's  main  interest  was  in  Peru  there  was  no 
immediate  collision,  and  the  union  of  the  two  countries  from 
1580  to  1640  still  further  postponed  the  conflict. 

In  1680,  Lobo,  the  Portuguese  governor  of  Rio  de  Janeiro, 
founded  the  settlement  of  Sacramento  on  the  north  bank  of 
the  River  Plate  in  the  disputed  territory;  the  governor  of  La 

1  Guillemard,  Magellan,  227.     Those  who  find  it   difficult   to  reconcile  our 
acquisition  of  the  Philippines  with  the  preservation  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  can 
not  fail  to  be  reassured  by  the  reflection  that  when  the  doctrine  was  promulgated 
the  islands  were  a  part  of  Spanish  America. 

2  As  calculated  by  D'Avezac,  Bulletin  de  la  Society  de  la  Geog.,  Aout  et  Sep. 
tembre,  1857,  map  at  the  end.    In  the  number  of  Mars  et  Avril,  1858,  Varnhagen 
contests  this  calculation. 

Where  the  line  really  should  have  been  drawn  is  mainly  a  question  of  curi 
osity,  as  it  ceased  to  have  political  importance  before  its  location  was  so  deter 
mined.  The  discussions  of  D'Avezac  and  Varnhagen  I  have  summarized  in  an 
appendix  to  this  essay  as  published  in  the  Report  of  the  American  Historical  As 
sociation  for  1891,  128-129.  Elaborate  calculations  of  the  problem  are  made  by 
Harrisse  in  his  Diplomatic  History,  by  Dawson,  and  by  August  Baum  in  his 
Inaugural  dissertation,  Die  Demarkationslinie  Papst  Alexander  VI.  und  ihre  Folg- 
ungen,  Cologne,  1890. 


THE  DEMARCATION  LINE  213 

Plata  prepared  to  expel  the  intruders,  but  before  hostilities 
had  gone  far  the  home  governments  entered  into  negotia 
tions.  It  was  agreed  to  appoint  a  commission  of  experts 
like  that  of  1524  to  meet  as  then  in  Badajos  and  Yelves  to 
determine  the  exact  location  of  the  line  of  Demarcation.  In 
case  no  settlement  could  be  reached  they  were  to  submit  the 
matter  to  the  Pope.  At  this  convention  Spain  and  Portugal 
took  positions  exactly  the  reverse  of  what  they  maintained 
in  1524.  Now  that  the  Moluccas  were  no  longer  at  stake 
the  Portuguese  insisted  on  taking  the  westernmost  of  the 
Cape  Verd  Islands  as  the  starting  point,  while  the  Spaniards 
thought  it  equitable  to  take  the  centre  island  of  the  group. 
They  could  not  agree  upon  maps.  According  to  the  Portu 
guese  map,  that  of  Teixeira,  the  new  colony  was  on  their  side 
if  the  measurement  began  at  San  Antonio  (the  westernmost 
of  the  Cape  Verd  Islands),  but  not  if  they  measured  from  the 
Spanish  starting  point.  According  to  D'Avezac's  conclu 
sions  the  Spanish  calculation  at  this  time  was  very  nearly 
correct,  although  a  disinterested  judge  would  pronounce  in 
favor  of  beginning  the  measurement  from  the  western  ex 
tremity  of  the  Cape  Verd  group.  The  Spaniards  proposed 
to  submit  the  matter  to  the  Pope  and  Cardinals  in  full  con 
sistory  or  to  the  Academies  of  London  and  Paris,  but  Portu 
gal  refused.1 

A  scientific  settlement  in  which  both  parties  could  acqui 
esce  seemed  hopeless,  so  finally  the  two  sovereigns  in  1750 
agreed  in  consigning  to  oblivion  the  rival  claims  growing  out 
of  the  Demarcation  Line  and  began  all  over  again,  declaring 

1  Dissertacion  Historica  y  Geographica  Sobre  el  Meridiano  de  Demarcation  entre 
los  Dominios  de  Espana  y  Portugal,  etc.,  por  Don  Jorge  Juan,  y  Don  Antonio  de 
Ulloa,  etc.,  Madrid,  1740,46-68  ;  Calvo,  Recueil  Complet,  I,  205-18  ;  MS.  memoir 
of  Lastarria,  extracted  in  L'Art  de  Verifier  les  Dates,  edited  by  the  Marquis  of 
Fortia,  3d  series,  XIII,  6-8;  the  part  of  this  work  relating  to  Brazil  was  published 
separately  as  Histoire  de  I'Empire  du  Bre'sil  depuis  sa  decouverte  jusqu'a  nos  jours, 
par  David  Bailie  Warden.  Calvo  includes  a  text  of  Juan  and  Ulloa's  Disser 
tacion,  which  is  rare,  in  his  Recueil  Complet  des  Traites,  etc.,  de  I'Amerique  Latine, 
I,  190-293.  Cairo's  text  is  inaccurate,  and  was  evidently  set  up  from  a  hasty 
MS.  copy.  In  one  place  eight  lines  have  fallen  out,  and  he  can  only  conjecture, 
"  Es  probable  que  aqui  se  omitio  por  inadvertencia  una  clausula  6  algunas  palabras." 


214  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

Alexander's  Bull  and  the  treaty  of  Tordesillas  and  others 
based  thereon  all  null  and  void.  Spain  secured  unques 
tioned  possession  of  the  Philippine  Islands,  while  the  boun 
daries  of  Brazil  were  drawn  for  the  most  part  as  they  exist 
to-day,  partly  on  the  basis  of  possession  and  partly  on  that  of 
the  physical  configuration  of  the  country.1 

The  execution  of  this  treaty  in  turn  gave  rise  to  conflicts, 
and  in  1761  it  was  abrogated.  So  far  as  Spain  and  Portugal 
are  concerned  the  story  closes  with  the  boundary  treaty  of 
1779.2 

A  brief  glance  may  now  be  given  to  the  attitude  of 
other  nations  toward  the  demarcation  lines.  In  regard  to 
England  it  is,  I  think,  not  without  significance  that  Henry 
the  Seventh's  letters  patent  to  John  Cabot  seem  intentionally 
to  avoid  flagrant  conflict  with  the  rights  of  Spain,  for  Cabot 
was  commissioned  to  explore  "all  parts,  regions  and  bays  of 
the  Eastern,  Western,  and  Northern  Sea."  Spam's  field 
of  discovery  by  the  Demarcation  Bull  lay  south  and  west  of 
the  line,  but  Cabot  is  not  authorized  to  go  in  a  southerly 
direction  from  England.  We  may  say,  then,  that  although 
Cabot's  voyage  did  not  respect  the  rights  of  Spain  in  full, 
the  king  evidently  desired  to  respect  them  in  spirit  so  far  as 
he  could  without  relinquishing  the  enterprise  altogether. 

Richard  Hakluyt  in  his  Discourse  concerning  Western  Plant 
ing  which  was  written  in  1584  at  Ralegh's  request  to  inter 
est  Elizabeth  in  colonial  expansion,  devotes  a  long  chapter 
to  "An  Aunswer  to  the  Bull  of  the  Donation  of  all  the  West 
Indies  graunted  to  the  Kinges  of  Spaine  by  Pope  Alexander 
the  Vlth,  whoe  was  himselfe  a  Spanairde  borne."3  In 
1613  the  Spanish  Secretary  of  State  protested  against  the 
English  settlements  in  Virginia  and  the  Bermudas  on  the 

1  The  text  of  the  treaty  of  1750  is  in  Martens,  Supplement  au  Recueil  des 
trades  de  paix,  I,  378-422,  and  in  the  Statement  by  the  United  States  of  Brazil  to 
the  President  of  the    United  States  of  America.     New  York,  III.     It  is  summa 
rized  in  Baum  and  in  L'Art  de  Verifier  les  Dates,  XIV,  148-149. 

2  Baum,  52. 

3  Documentary  History  of  Maine,  II,  129-151.     This  essay  of  Hakluyt's  is  in 
cluded  in  Goldsmid's  edition  of  the  Voyages. 


THE  DEMARCATION  LINE  215 

ground  that  they  infringed  upon  the  possessions  of  the  king 
of  Spain  "whose  title  .  .  .  was  indisputable  by  the  Con- 
quest  of  Castile,  and  by  the  Pope's  Bull  of  Donation."  1 
The  question  came  up  in  the  House  of  Commons  in  1620 
and  1621  when  title  by  papal  grant  was  derided.2 

In  1531  Francis  I.  prohibited  the  Norman  vessels  from 
voyages  to  Brazil  or  Guinea,  where  the  king  of  Portugal 
claimed  to  be  sovereign.3  The  municipal  council  of  Rouen 
protested  in  vain.  This  royal  decision  was  secured  by  the 
Portuguese  ambassador  by  bribing  Admiral  Chabot.  Again 
in  1537  and  1538  the  Portuguese  secured  new  ordinances 
prohibiting  voyages  to  Brazil  and  Malaguette  under  pain  of 
confiscation  and  bodily  punishment.4  Baron  Saint  Blancard 
vigorously  protested,  maintaining  the  freedom  of  the  seas, 
and  that  trade  with  the  peoples  of  the  New  World  could  not 
be  monopolized  by  one  nation  any  more  than  trade  with  the 
peoples  of  the  Old  World.5 

The  same  contention  is  made  even  more  clearly  by  the 
French  author  of  one  of  the  relations  in  Ramusio's  Naviga- 
tioni :  "  The  Portuguese  have  no  more  right  to  prevent  the 
French  resorting  to  these  lands,  where  they  have  not  them- 

1  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Colonial  Series,  1, 16.    An  elaborate  answer  seems 
to  have  been  prepared. 

2  Debates  of  House  of  Commons,  1620  and  1621, 1,  250-51,  cited  from  Bancroft's 
History  of  the  United  States,  I,  10. 

3  Francis  I.  is  said  to  have  remarked,  in  reference  to  the  Demarcation  Line : 
"  Je  voudrais  bien  qu'on  me  montrat  1'article  du  testament  d'Adam  qui  partage  le 
Nouveau-Monde  entre  mes  freres,  1'Empereur  Charles  V.  et  le  Koi  de  Portugal, 
en  m'excluant  de  la  succession."     Bernal  Diaz  relates  this  anecdote. 

4  Pigeonneau,  Hist,  du  Commerce  de  la  France,  II,  150-54.     In  1539,  Chabot 
was  disgraced  and  Francis  I.  withdrew  his  prohibitions,  but  he  was  never  active 
on  the  side  of  the  voyagers.     See  Pigeonneau,  134-70. 

5  "Dictus  Rex  Serenissimus  [Portugaliac]  nullum  habet  dominium  nee  juris- 
dictionem  in  dictis  insulis  ;  imo  gentes  eas  incolentes  plurimos  habent   repulos 
quibus  more  tamen  et  ritu  silvestri  reguntur,  et  ita  ponitur  in  facto.     Etiam  po- 
nitur  in  facto  probabili  quod  dictus  sereuissimus  Rex  Portngalire  nullam  majorem 
habeat  potestatem  in  dictus  insulis  quam  habet  Rex  Christianissimus,  imo  enim 
mare  sit  commune,  et  insulse  prsefatae  omnibus  aperta?,  permissum  est  nedum 
Gallis  sed  omnibus  aliis  uationibus  eas  frequentare  et  cum  accolis  commercium 
habere."     Cited  from  D'Avezac,  from  Varnhagen,  Historia  geral  do  Brazil,  443, 
or  French  ed.,  I,  441. 


216  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

selves  planted  the  Christian  faith,  where  they  are  neither 
obeyed  nor  loved,  than  we  should  have  to  prevent  them  from 
going  to  Scotland,  Denmark,  or  Norway  because  we  had  been 
there  before  them."  *  If  this  doctrine  could  have  prevailed 
it  would  have  changed  the  history  of  the  New  World.  That 
it  did  not  prevail  was  owing  in  a  large  part  to  the  papal 
Bulls. 

The  Portuguese  rights  in  the  Indian  Seas,  then  repre 
sented  by  Spain,  were  contested  by  Grotius  in  1609,  in  a 
tract  entitled  "Mare  Liberum  seu  de  Jure  quod  Batams 
Competit  ad  Indica  Commercial  which  maintained  the  doc 
trine  of  the  freedom  of  the  seas  asserted  by  these  French 
writers.2 

This  sketch  may  be  concluded  with  a  brief  glance  at  some 
of  the  more  important  results  of  Pope  Alexander's  attempt 
to  divide  the  undiscovered  heathen  parts  of  the  world  be 
tween  Spain  and  Portugal. 

The  most  striking  result  was  entirely  unexpected  and  con 
trary  to  the  design  of  the  Bull.  Designed,  in  the  interest  of 
Spain,  to  exclude  Portugal  from  discovery  and  colonization 
in  the  west,  it  secured  Portugal  a  title  to  Brazil  which  her 
only  formidable  rival  could  not  impeach.  Another  result, 
also  undesigned,  but  of  great  importance,  was  the  promotion 
of  geographical  knowledge.  The  establishment  of  the  De 
marcation  Line  led  to  Magellan's  voyage,  and  the  efforts  to  de 
termine  it  gave  a  powerful  impulse  to  the  progress  of  geodesy.3 

I 

1  Pigeonneau,  Hist.,  II,  153,  from  Ramusio,  IV,  426.    The  author  is  supposed 
to  have  been  Pierre  Crignon. 

2  As  the  reputation  of  Grotius  grew,  and  his  great  work,  De  Jure  Belli  et 
Pads  (1625),  established  him  as  an  authority,  the  "learned  "  Selden  undertook 
to  confute  his  doctrine  in  his  Mare  Clausum,  which  was  designed  to  uphold  Eng 
land's  sovereignty  of  the  narrow  seas.     But  time  and  progress  were  with  Grotius, 
and  the  range  of  territorial  waters  has  since  narrowed  with  the  growth  of  com 
merce  and  the  march  of  civilization. 

3  Humboldt,  Cosmos  (Harper's  ed.),  II,  277,  says :  "The  papal  lines  of  de 
marcation  .  .  .  exercised  great  influence  on  the  endeavors  to  improve  nautical 
astronomy,  and  especially  on  the  methods  attempted  for  the  determination  of  the 
longitude."     For  various  efforts  of  scientific  men  to  get  the  longitude  of  places 
to  determine  the  line  in  South  America,  see  Juan  y  Ulloa,  Dissertation,  68-94 ; 
Calvo,  Recueil,  I,  217-229;  L'Art  de  Verifier  les  Dates,  3d  ser.,  XIII,  8. 


THE  DEMARCATION  LINE  217 

Third,  the  earlier  bulls  to  Portugal,  and  Alexander's, 
formed  the  corner  stone  of  the  old  colonial  system  with  its 
rigorous  monopoly  of  commerce  for  the  mother  country,  from 
the  evils  of  which  the  civilized  world  is  not  yet  free.1 

Men  now  smile  when  they  read  or  hear  of  the  attempt  of 
Alexander  Sixth  to  divide  the  undiscovered  world  between 
Spain  and  Portugal,  but  what  single  act  of  any  Pope  in  the 
history  of  the  Church  has  exercised  directly  and  indirectly  a 
more  momentous  influence  on  human  affairs  than  this  last 
reminder2  of  the  bygone  world  sovereignty  of  the  Holy  See? 

1  "  Quibuscumque  personis  cujuscumque  dignitatis  .  .  .  districtius  inhibemus 
ne  ad  insulas  et  terras  firmas,  inventas  et  inveniendas  .  .  .  pro  mercibus  haben- 
dis,  vel  quavis  alia  de  causa  accedere  praesumant  absque  vestra  ac  hasredum  et 
successorum  vestrorum  praedictorum  licentia  special!."     Alexander's  Bull  of  May 
4,  1493. 

2  "  Dieser  Federstreich  war  die  letzte  Erinnernng  an  die  Kosmische  Autoritat 
des  romischen  Papsttums."    Gregorovius,  Gesch.  der  Stadt  Rom,  7,  326. 


SENECA  AND   THE  DISCOVERY  OF  AMERICA 


SENECA  AND   THE  DISCOVERY  OF  AMERICA1 

FERDINAND  COLUMBUS  tells  us  that  among  the  causes  that 
moved  his  father  to  discover  the  Indies  was  the  high  author 
ity  of  those  who  said  it  was  possible  to  sail  from  Spain  west 
ward  to  India  like  Aristotle  .  .  .  and  like  Seneca  in  his  first 
book  on  Nature  who  says  that  from  the  uttermost  parts  of 
Spain  to  the  Indians  one  might  sail  in  a  few  days  with  a  fair 
wind.2  The  passage  in  Seneca  to  which  reference  is  here 
made  is  the  following :  "  Punctum  est  istud  in  quo  navigatis, 
in  quo  bellatis,  in  quo  regna  disponitis ;  .  .  .  Sursum  ingen- 
tia  spatia  sunt  in  quorum  possessionem  animus  admittitur; 
.  .  .  tune  contemnit  domicilii  prioris  angustias.  Quantum 
enim  est,  quod  ab  ultimis  litoribus  Hispaniae  usque  ad  Indos 
jacet  ?  Paucissimorum  dierum  spatium,  si  navem  suus  ventus 
implevit.  At  ilia  regio  coelestis  per  triginta  annos  velocis- 
simo  sideri  viam  praestat,  nusquam  resistenti,  sed  aequaliter 
cito."  (Nat.  Quaest.  Praef.  9-12.) 

The  two  sentences  in  Italics  have  been  quoted  by  nearly 
every  writer  on  the  discoveries  from  Ferdinand  Columbus  to 
the  present  day  and  have  without  exception  so  far  as  I  have 
noticed  been  misinterpreted  in  two  ways.  The  error  began 
with  Roger  Bacon  who,  in  his  Opus  Majus,*  in  support  of 

1  Reprinted  with  some  rearrangement  from  The  Academy  (London)  of  Feb 
ruary  11,  1893. 

2  Hislone,  cap.  vii.     The  passage  is  no  doubt  based  on  the  words  of  Colum 
bus  in  his  letter  to  Ferdinand  and  Isabella  describing  his  third  voyage.    Navar- 
rete,  I,  261. 

3  Edition  of  J.  H.  Bridge,  London,  1900,  I,  290.     Bacon's  Opus  Majus  was  in 
large  part  the  source  of  the  Ymago  Mundi  of  Cardinal  Pierre  D'Ailly  (Petrus  de 
Aliaco)  which  Columbus  studied  and  from  which  he  derived  his  knowledge  of  the 
geographical  theories  of  the  ancients. 


222  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

Aristotle's  precise  statement  "quod  mare  parvum  est  inter 
finem  Hispaniae  a  parte  occidentis  et  inter  principium  Indiae 
a  parte  orientis,"  adds,  "et  Seneca,  libro  quinto  Naturalium 
dicit  quod  mare  hoc  est  navigabile  in  paucissimis  diebus,  si 
ventus  sit  conveniens."  Bacon  quoting  apparently  from 
memory  took  paudssimorum  absolutely,  as  indicating  that 
Seneca  believed  the  Atlantic  to  be  a  comparatively  narrow 
body  of  water.  And  such  has  been,  in  general,  the  practice 
of  writers  on  the  discoveries  from  that  day  to  this.  Recent 
examples  of  this  interpretation  are  to  be  found  in  John 
Fiske's  The  Discovery  of  America  (I,  369)  and  Gaffarel's 
Histoire  de  la  Decouverte  de  VAmerique  (I,  157).  It  is  clear, 
however,  to  one  who  reads  the  context  with  care,  that  pau- 
cissimorum  is  to  be  taken  relatively  and  in  contrast  with 
thirty  years,  i.  e.,  a  very  few  days  compared  with  thirty  years. 
But,  as  compared  with  thirty  years,  thirty,  sixty  or  ninety 
days  might  with  equal  propriety  be  termed  "very  few,"  con 
sequently  the  passage  cannot  be  cited  as  indicating  a  belief 
on  Seneca's  part  that  the  distance  westward  from  Spain  to 
India  was  inconsiderable. 

More  important  than  this,  however,  is  the  question  whether 
Seneca  had  in  mind  at  all  a  voyage  across  the  Atlantic.  He 
is  not  discussing  possible  routes  to  India  nor  any  geographi 
cal  question,  but  is  contrasting  the  relative  dimensions  of  the 
earth,  the  scene  of  human  life,  and  the  universe  —  the  realm 
of  thought.  "  The  stage  of  human  life  is  but  a  point ;  in  its 
widest  extent  from  the  furthest  West  to  the  far  East,  from 
one  end  of  the  world  to  the  other,  the  longest  journey1  man 
can  take  is  but  a  space  of  a  very  few  days  with  fair  winds, 
while  that  heavenly  region  it  would  take  the  swiftest  star 
ever  in  motion  thirty  years  to  traverse."  Such  is  the  true 
sense  of  the  passage.  From  a  rhetorical  point  of  view,  the 

1  Cf.  this  passage  from  Pliny's  Natural  History,  which  shows  that  to  the  "Roman 
of  Seneca's  time  the  distance  from  Spain  to  India  was  synonymous  with  the  long 
est  possible  earthly  journey  :  "  Pars  nostra  terrarum,  de  qua  memoro,  ambienti 
(ut  dictum  est)  oceano  velut  innatans  longissime  ab  ortu  ad  occasum  patet,  hoc 
est,  ab  India  ad  Herculis  columnas."  Hist.  Nat.,  lib.  II,  cap.  cviii. 


SENECA   AND   THE  DISCOVERY  OF  AMERICA     223 

distance  from  Spain  westward  to  India,  as  an  absolutely 
unknown  quantity,  would  be  out  of  place  in  the  comparison. 
Seneca  would  naturally  use  a  great  but  known  distance.  The 
use  of  the  superlative  ultimis  indicates  that  he  is  thinking  of 
a  place  not  only  far  from  Rome  (cf.  Hispania  Ulterior),  but 
as  far  as  possible  from  India.  Had  he  been  thinking  of  a 
westward  voyage,  the  more  emphasis  laid  upon  ultimis  the 
weaker  his  comparison.  Again,  in  that  case  why  should  he 
not  have  used  proximis  if,  as  some  have  thought,  he  believed 
the  distance  to  be  short?  The  journey  from  Spain  to  India 
in  Seneca's  time  would  have  been  all  by  water  save  the  few 
miles  at  Suez.  Is  it  likely,  then,  that  any  ancient  reader  of 
Seneca  would  have  thought  of  any  other  distance  from  Spain 
to  India  than  that  of  the  known  route  ?  Roger  Bacon  found 
it  natural,  if  not  necessary,  in  loosely  paraphrasing  Aristotle 
(De  Coelo,  II,  14)  to  be  extremely  explicit;  e.  g.,  "Dicit 
Aristoteles  quod  mare  parvum  est  inter  finem  Hispaniae  a 
parte  occidentis  et  inter  principium  Indiae  a  parte  orientis." 
Had  Seneca  been  thinking  of  a  westward  voyage,  something 
then  unthought  of  save  by  the  most  eminent  geographers, 
would  he  not  have  been  as  explicit  as  Bacon?  In  fine,  this 
traditional  modern  interpretation,  examples  of  which  may  be 
seen  in  Humboldt  (Untersuchungen,  I,  148-50)  and  Payne 
(History  of  the  New  World,  42),  has  come  from  reading  this 
passage  in  Seneca  apart  from  its  context,  in  the  light  of  mod 
ern  geographical  knowledge,  and  with  a  strong  bias  toward 
finding  anticipations  of  modern  discoveries  in  the  pages  of 
ancient  writers.  In  this  case  Seneca's  famous  prophecy  — 

"  Venient  annis  saecula  seris 
Quibus  Oceanus  vincula  rerum 
Laxet,  et  ingens  pateat  tellus, 
Tethysque  novos  detegat  orbes, 
Nee  sit  terris  Ultima  Thule," 

may  have  set  the  current  of  interpretation.1 

1  A  writer  in  The  Nation  of  March  9,  1893,  reviewed  with  approval  this  in 
terpretation  of  Seneca's  meaning,  and  added  the  following  apt  comments  :  — 
"  The  truth  is,  that  Seneca  was  using  here  a  well-recognized  phrase  signifying 


224  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

the  known  world.    Now,  to  the  Roman  of  his  day,  Spain  was  the  '  jumping-off 
place/  and  from  it  the  world  lay  not  to  the  West  but  to  the  East ;  so  Juvenal  — 

'  Omnibus  in  terris  quse  sunt  a  Gadibus  usque 
Auroram  et  Gangeu.' 

There  is  no  more  sense  in  reading  the  Atlantic  Ocean  into  these  passages  than 
there  would  be  in  supposing  that  in  Dr.  Johnson's 

'  Let  observation,  with  extensive  view, 
Survey  mankind,  from  China  to  Peru,' 

the  sage  meant  to  confine  his  vision  to  the  Pacific." 


THE  PROPOSED  ABSORPTION  OF  MEXICO 
IN   1847-1848 


THE  PKOPOSED  ABSORPTION   OF  MEXICO 

IN   1847-1848 l 

DURING  the  last  eighteen  months,  few  students  of  our  his 
tory  can  have  failed  to  be  struck  with  the  points  of  similar 
ity  between  some  of  the  aspects  and  incidents  of  our  recent 
public  policy  and  some  of  the  phases  of  the  Mexican  War. 
Not  only  in  broad  outlines  is  there  a  resemblance  between  the 
two  situations,  but  it  exists  even  in  details.  What  a  curious 
coincidence  that  in  the  one  case  we  should  have  assisted  the 
exiled  Santa  Anna  to  return  to  Mexico,  counting  on  his 
friendly  aid  in  attaining  our  demands,  and  that  in  the  other 
the  exiled  Aguinaldo  should  have  been  brought  home  and  his 
followers  equipped  as  our  allies!  Indeed  let  any  one  who 
thinks  this  comparison  forced  read  over  his  Biglow  Papers. 
The  famous  epistle  of  Birdofreedom  Sawin  from  Mexico 
echoes  with  contemporaneous  discussion,  and  one  long  pas 
sage,  with  two  or  three  changes  in  the  names,  might  well 
serve  the  Anti-Imperialists  as  a  tract  for  the  times. 

But  it  is  not  my  purpose  on  this  occasion  to  follow  out  in 
detail  the  comparison  between  the  two  wars  and  the  issues 
arising  from  them,  but  rather,  in  view  of  the  present  persist 
ent  asseveration  that  the  victory  in  Manila  Bay  imposed  upon 
the  United  States  at  once  the  duty  and  the  necessity  of  secur 
ing  and  retaining  the  Philippines,  to  inquire  how  we  escaped 
annexing  all  of  Mexico  in  1848.  This  relic  of  New  Spain, 
less  populous  than  our  antipodal  islands,  contiguous  to  our 
territory,  a  political  wreck  from  the  incessant  turmoil  of  a 
generation,  in  the  complete  possession  of  our  armies  for 

1  Read  at  the  meeting  of  the  American  Historical  Association  at  Cambridge, 
Mass.,  December  29,  1899. 


228  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

months,  with  the  flag  flying  from  the  "Halls  of  the  Monte - 
zumas,"  was  finally  relinquished,  although  the  situation 
presented  every  argument  urged  for  the  retention  of  the 
Philippines  more  cogently,  and  annexation  would  have  in 
volved  fewer  social,  political,  and  constitutional  difficulties. 
In  the  light  of  present  events  and  of  current  opinion  it  is 
hardly  credible  that,  if  confronted  to-day  by  that  situation, 
our  people  would '  avoid  their  duty  and  leave  the  conquered 
to  work  out  their  own  salvation  merely  disburdened  of  some 
undeveloped  territory. 

That  a  policy  so  alien  to  our  present  ideas  should  have 
prevailed  only  a  half-century  ago  invites  some  explanation 
in  addition  to  the  obvious  one  that  expansion  and  the  ex 
tension  of  human  slavery  were,  in  the  minds  of  an  increas 
ing  number,  inextricably  bound  together,  and  consequently 
brought  the  deepening  moral  abhorrence  of  slavery,  which 
was  taking  fast  hold  of  the  idealists,  to  re -enforce  the  oppo 
sition  of  conservatism.  As  a  result  just  that  idealist  element 
which,  to-day,  leads  the  movement  for  expansion  under  the 
banner  of  political  altruism,  shrank  back  fifty  years  ago  from 
having  anything  to  do  with  it. 

It  is  to  offer  some  further  explanation  beyond  this  obvious 
one  that  I  undertake  a  brief  inquiry  into  the  rise,  diffusion, 
and  probable  strength  of  a  desire  to  acquire  all  of  Mexico. 
For  such  an  inquiry  will  show  that  the  movement  for  expan 
sion,  although  associated  in  the  minds  of  many  people  with 
the  extension  of  slavery,  was  by  no  means  identical  with  it, 
being  on  the  one  hand  strongly  opposed  by  some  of  the  ablest 
champions  of  the  institution  and  on  the  other  hand  ardently 
advocated  by  its  enemies,  while  the  body  of  its  support  was 
in  no  inconsiderable  degree  made  up  of  men  on  the  whole 
indifferent  to  the  slavery  question.  The  emergence  of  this 
expansionist  movement  at  this  time  in  spite  of  the  obstacles 
to  its  success  prepares  us  for  its  triumphant  career  at  the 
present  day,  when  it  has  no  substantial  hindrance  save  the 
conservative  spirit,  to  whose  objections  our  sanguine  people 
are  wont  to  pay  little  attention. 


THE  ABSORPTION  OF  MEXICO  229 

It  is  well  known  that  President  Polk  on  assuming  office 
announced  to  George  Bancroft  that  he  proposed  during  his 
term  to  settle  the  Oregon  question  and  to  acquire  California.1 
He  is,  I  think,  with  the  possible  exception  of  Grant,  the  only 
President  who  has  entered  office  with  a  positive  and  definite 
policy  of  expansion.  Polk  was  in  fact  an  expansionist,  not 
at  the  behest  of  slavery  as  has  been  charged,  but  for  the 
cause  itself;  yet  a  prudent  expansionist,  for  he  hesitated  at 
the  incorporation  of  large  masses  of  alien  people,  refusing  to 
countenance,  as  we  shall  see,  the  all-of-Mexico  movement  and 
yielding  only  in  the  case  of  the  proposed  purchase  of  Cuba. 

To  accomplish  his  purpose  in  regard  to  California,  when 
negotiations  failed,  President  Polk  was  ready  to  try  con 
quest  and  he  welcomed,  if  he  did  not  provoke,  the  war  with 
Mexico.2  The  conquest  of  sparsely  settled  California  and 
New  Mexico  was  easily  accomplished.  The  resistance  of 
Mexico,  although  more  desperate  than  was  expected,  was  not 
effectual  and  in  April,  1847,  Mr.  Trist  was  despatched  with 
the  project  of  a  treaty.  Our  commissioner  was  authorized 
to  offer  peace  on  the  cession  of  all  territory  east  of  the  Rio 
Grande  from  its  mouth  to  the  southern  boundary  of  New 
Mexico,  New  Mexico,  Upper  and  Lower  California  and  a 
right  of  way  across  the  Isthmus  of  Tehuan tepee.  "The 
boundary  of  the  Rio  Grande,  and  the  cession  to  the  United 
States  of  New  Mexico  and  Upper  California  constituted  an 
ultimatum,"  and  less  than  that  was  under  no  circumstances 
to  be  accepted.  The  refusal  of  these  terms  was  followed  in 
September  by  the  capture  of  the  City  of  Mexico.  The  news 
of  this  triumph  of  the  American  arms  which  reached  Wash 
ington  late  in  October  soon  gave  rise  to  an  active  agitation 
to  incorporate  all  of  Mexico  into  the  Union.3  The  oppo- 

1  Schouler's  History  of  the  United  States,  IV,  498. 

2  Compare  the  narrative  in  Schouler's  Historical  Briefs,  149-151,  which  is  a 
faithful  presentation  in  brief  of  the  material  contained  in  Folk's  diary. 

3  Cf.  Von  Hoist,  III,  341-344.     It  will  be  noticed  that  Von  Hoist,  not  having 
access  to  Folk's  diary,  worked  in  the  dark  in  regard  to  the  President's  Mexican 
policy  and  attributes  designs  to  him  which  he  did  not  entertain.    The  New  York 
Sun  asserted  in  October  that  it  had  advocated  the  occupation  of  Mexico  in  May. 
Niles's  Register,  LXXIII,  113. 


230  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

nents  of  the  administration  averred  this  to  be  the  design  of 
the  President,  although  it  was  not,  and  the  suspicion  was 
increased  by  the  known  fact  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas 
ury,  Robert  J.  Walker,  was  an  advocate  of  this  policy.1 

Inasmuch  as  President  Polk  initiated  his  own  policy  and 
resolutely  and  independently  pursued  his  own  plans,  no 
account  of  his  presidency  can  be  satisfactory  to-day  which 
is  not  based  on  a  careful  examination  of  the  voluminous 
diary2  in  whose  pages  are  recorded  not  only  his  own  views 
and  intentions,  but  also  brief  reports  of  cabinet  meetings  and 
of  conferences  with  party  leaders.  Turning  to  this  record 
we  find  that  Polk  told  his  cabinet,  September  4,  1847,  that 
if  the  war  was  still  further  prolonged  he  would  "be  unwill 
ing  to  pay  the  sum  which  Mr.  Trist  had  been  authorized  to 
pay,"  in  the  settlement  of  a  boundary,  by  which  it  was  con 
templated  that  the  United  States  would  acquire  New  Mexico 
and  the  Calif ornias;  and  that  "if  Mexico  continued  obsti 
nately  to  refuse  to  treat,  I  was  decidedly  in  favor  of  insisting 
on  more  territory  than  the  provinces  named."  The  question 
was  discussed  by  the  cabinet  on  September  7,  and  Secretary 
Walker  and  Attorney-General  Clifford  are  recorded  as  "in 
favour  of  acquiring  in  addition  the  department  or  state  of 
Tamaulipas,  which  includes  the  port  of  Tampico."  Secre 
tary  Buchanan,  the  Postmaster-General,  and  Secretary  John 
Y.  Mason  opposed  this  proposition.  The  President  declared 
himself  "as  being  in  favour  of  acquiring  the  cession  of  the 
Department  of  Tamaulipas,  if  it  should  be  found  practicable." 
Clifford  proposed  the  recall  of  Trist  and  the  prosecution  of 
the  war  with  the  greatest  vigor  until  Mexico  should  sue  for 
peace.  This  was  approved  by  Walker  and  by  the  President,  ex 
cept  as  regards  the  recall  of  Trist.  A  month  later  he  changed 
his  mind  and  Trist  was  recalled,  as  he  notes,  October  5, 

1  Baltimore  American  in  Niles,  LXXIII,  113. 

2  George  Bancroft's  typewritten  copy  of  the  MS.  of  the  diary  Is  among  the 
Bancroft  Papers  in  the  Lenox  Library.    For  an  account  of  the  diary  see  Schonler, 
Historical  Briefs,  121-124.    I  may  take  the  occasion  here  to  express  my  apprecia 
tion  of  the  courtesy  of  Mr.  Eames  and  Mr.  Palfcsits  in  giving  me  every  facility  in 
the  examination  of  the  diary  and  correspondence  of  Polk. 


THE  ABSORPTION  OF  MEXICO  231 

"because  his  remaining  longer  with  the  army  could  not 
probably  accomplish  the  objects  of  his  mission,  and  because 
his  remaining  longer  might  and  probably  would  impress 
the  Mexican  government  with  the  belief  that  the  United 
States  were  so  anxious  for  peace,  that  they  would  ultimate 
(sic)  conclude  one  on  the  Mexican  terms.  Mexico  must 
now  sue  for  peace,  and  when  she  does  we  will  hear  her 
propositions." 

Another  month  passes  and  Secretary  Buchanan  has  shifted 
his  position,  presumably  in  response  to  some  indications  of  a 
changing  public  sentiment,  such  as  the  recent  Democratic 
victor}^  in  Pennsylvania,  and  we  are  not  surprised  to  learn 
that  he  "spoke  in  an  unsettled  tone"  and  "would  express  no 
opinion  between  these  two  plans,"  i.  e.,  for  the  President  in 
his  message  "to  designate  the  part  of  Mexican  territory^ 
which  we  intended  to  hold  as  an  indemnity,  or  to  occupy  all 
Mexico,  by  a  largely  increased  force,  and  subdue  the  coun 
try  and  promise  protection  to  the  inhabitants."  Buchanan 
would,  so  Polk  gathered  from  his  utterances,  favor  the 
acquisition  of  Tamaulipas  and  the  country  east  of  the  Sierra 
Madre  Mountains  and  withdraw  the  troops  to  that  line. 
This  in  fact  Buchanan  announced  to  the  President  nearly 
two  months  later,  January  2.  "My  views,"  records  the  Pres 
ident,  November  9,  "  were  in  substance  that  we  would  con 
tinue  the  prosecution  of  the  war  with  an  increased  force, 
hold  all  the  country  we  had  conquered,  or  might  conquer, 
and  levy  contributions  upon  the  enemy  to  support  the  war, 
until  a  just  peace  was  obtained,  that  we  must  have  indem 
nity  in  territory,  and  that  as  a  part  indemnity,  the  Califor- 
nias  and  New  Mexico  should  under  no  circumstances  be 
restored  to  Mexico,  but  that  they  should  henceforward  be 
considered  a  part  of  the  United  States  and  permanent  ter 
ritorial  governments  be  established  over  them;  and  that 
if  Mexico  protracted  the  war  additional  territory  must  be 
acquired  as  further  indemnity." 

He  adds  in  regard  to  Buchanan :  "  His  change  of  opinion 
will  not  alter  my  views;  I  am  fixed  in  my  course,  and  I 


232  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

think  all  in  the  Cabinet  except  Mr.  Buchanan  still  concur 
with  me,  and  he  may  yet  do  so." 

On  November  18,  Polk  requested  Buchanan  to  prepare  a 
paragraph  for  the  message  to  the  effect:  "That  failing  to 
obtain  a  peace,  we  should  continue  to  occupy  Mexico  with 
our  troops  and  encourage  and  protect  the  friends  of  peace  in 
Mexico  to  establish  and  maintain  a  Republican  Government, 
able  and  willing  to  make  peace."  By  this  time  Buchanan 
had  come  into  an  agreement  with  the  President,  and  on  the 
20th  the  cabinet  all  agreed  that  such  a  declaration  should  be 
inserted  in  the  message.  But  if  peace  could  not  be  obtained 
by  this  means  the  question  was  as  to  the  next  step.  "  In  Mr. 
Buchanan's  draft,  he  stated  in  that  event  that  'we  must  ful 
fill  that  destiny  which  Providence  may  have  in  store  for  both 
countries.' ' 

Experience  warns  us,  when  a  statesman  proposes  humble 
submission  to  the  leadings  of  Providence,  that  he  is  listening 
anxiously  and  intently  to  the  voice  of  the  people.  President 
Polk  was  too  independent  a  man  to  get  his  divine  guidance 
by  those  channels  and  announced  to  his  cabinet :  "  I  thought 
this  would  be  too  indefinite  and  that  it  would  be  avoiding 
my  constitutional  responsibility.  I  preferred  to  state  in  sub 
stance,  that  we  should,  in  that  event,  take  the  measure  of  our 
indemnity  into  our  own  hands,  and  dictate  our  own  terms  to 
Mexico." 

Yet  all  the  cabinet  except  Clifford  preferred  with  Buchanan 
to  follow  whither  destiny  should  lead.1  The  paragraph  was 
still  troublesome,  and  Polk  presented  a  third  draft  to  the 
cabinet,  November  23.  "Mr.  Buchanan,"  records  the  diary, 
"still  preferred  his  own  draft,  and  so  did  Mr.  Walker,  the 
latter  avowing  as  a  reason,  that  he  was  for  taking  the  whole 
of  Mexcio,  if  necessary,  and  he  thought  the  construction 
placed  upon  Mr.  Buchanan's  draft  by  a  large  majority  of  the 
people  would  be  that  it  looked  to  that  object." 

Folk's  answer  does  him  honor:  "I  replied  that  I  was  not 

1  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Buchanan  used  this  rejected  paragraph  in  a 
letter  to  a  Democratic  meeting  in  Philadelphia.  Von  Ilolst,  III,  341  n. 


THE  ABSORPTION  OF  MEXICO  233 

prepared  to  go  to  that  extent;  and  furthermore,  that  I  did 
not  desire  that  anything  I  said  in  the  message  should  be  so 
obscure  as  to  give  rise  to  doubt  or  discussion  as  to  what  my 
true  meaning  was;  that  I  had  in  my  last  message  declared 
that  I  did  not  contemplate  the  conquest  of  Mexico.  And 
that  in  another  part  of  this  paper  I  had  said  the  same  thing." 

It  will  be  noticed  that  on  this  occasion  Robert  J.  Walker 
comes  out  squarely  for  all  of  Mexico.  He  seems  to  have 
improved  the  occasion  again  in  his  Treasury  report  to  express 
his  views,  but  the  President  required  that  to  be  in  harmony 
with  the  message.  Perhaps  it  will  not  be  superfluous  to 
remark  that  the  most  advanced  expansionist  in  Folk's  cab 
inet  always  had  been  an  expansionist,  was  opposed  to  slav 
ery,  although  a  Southerner  by  adoption,  and  was  during  the 
Civil  War  a  strong  Union  man. 

Twice  later  this  crucial  paragraph  was  revised.  In  its 
final  form  it  read:  "If  we  shall  ultimately  fail  [i.  e.,  to 
secure  peace],  then  we  shall  have  exhausted  all  honorable 
means  in  pursuit  of  peace,  and  must  continue  to  occupy  her 
country  with  our  troops,  taking  the  full  measure  of  indem 
nity  into  our  own  hands,  and  must  enforce  the  terms  which 
our  honor  demands."1  An  earlier  passage,  however,  in 
explicit  terms  renounced  the  "  all-of -Mexico  "  policy  in  these 
words :  "  It  has  never  been  contemplated  by  me,  as  an  object 
of  the  war,  to  make  a  permanent  conquest  of  the  Republic  of 
Mexico,  or  to  annihilate  her  separate  existence  as  an  inde 
pendent  nation."2 

The  opening  of  Congress  gave  an  opportunity  for  the  rising 
feeling  for  all  of  Mexico  to  show  its  strength.  Yet  it  must 
not  be  forgotten  that  the  new  House  had  been  elected  over  a 
year  earlier,  when  the  opposition  to  the  war  was  perhaps  at 

1  Niles's  Register,  LXXIII,  230. 

2  Ibid.    The  sincerity  of  this  renunciation  coming  from  one  who  had  declared 
that  war  existed  by  the  act  of  Mexico  was  not  unnaturally  doubted.     Calhoun 
wrote  his  son,  Dec.  11  :"  You  of  course  have  seen  the  Message  and  the  course  it 
indicates  to  be  pursued  toward  Mexico.     The  impression  here  is  that  it  is  intended 
to  conquer  and  subject  the  whole  country."    Correspondence  of  John  C.  Calhoun 
in  Report  of  the  Am.  Hist.  Assoc.,  1899,  II,  741. 


234  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

its  height,  and  not  yet  counterbalanced  by  the  excitement  of 
the  victories  of  1847.  During  the  first  weeks  of  the  session 
many  series  of  resolutions  in  favor  of  and  against  the  pol 
icy  of  all  of  Mexico  were  presented.  Several  of  the  latter 
were  offered  by  Southern  Whigs  like  Botts  of  Virginia  and 
Toombs  of  Georgia,  and  illustrate  the  point  that  the  slavery 
and  expansion  interests  were  not  identical.1  Similarly,  as 
Calhoun  made  the  ablest  speech  against  the  absorption  of 
Mexico,  so  the  most  outspoken  advocates  of  it  were  Senator 
Dickinson  of  New  York,  a  Hunker  Democrat,  and  Senator 
Hannegan  of  Indiana.  Hannegan  offered  the  following 
resolution,  January  10 :  "  That  it  may  become  necessary  and 
proper,  as  it  is  within  the  constitutional  capacity  of  this 
government,  for  the  United  States  to  hold  Mexico  as  a  ter 
ritorial  appendage."2  Senator  Dickinson,  who  at  the  Jack 
son  dinner  on  the  8th  had  offered  the  toast,  "  A  More  Perfect 
Union  embracing  the  entire  North  American  Continent,"3  on 
the  12th  made  a  speech  in  the  Senate  advocating  expansion, 
in  which  he  declared  for  all  of  Mexico  and  asserted  that  it 
was  our  destiny  to  embrace  all  of  North  America.  "  Neither 
national  justice,"  said  he,  "nor  national  morality  requires  us 
tamely  to  surrender  our  Mexican  conquests,  nor  should  such 
be  the  policy  of  the  government  if  it  would  advance  the  cause 
of  national  freedom  or  secure  its  enjoyment  to  the  people  of 
Mexico." 

Calhoun  at  the  earliest  opportunity,  December  15,  had  offered 
these  trenchant  resolutions :  "  that  to  conquer  Mexico  or  to  hold 
it  either  as  a  province  or  to  incorporate  it  in  the  Union  would 
be  inconsistent  with  the  avowed  object  for  which  the  war  has 
been  prosecuted ;  a  departure  from  the  settled  policy  of  the 
government;  in  conflict  with  its  character  and  genius,  and  in 
the  end  subversive  of  our  free  and  popular  institutions. "  4 

1  Cf.  the  letters  of  Wilson  Lumpkin,  John  A.  Camphell,  and  Waddy  Thomp 
son  to  Calhoun  at  this  time.     Correspondence  of  John  C.  Calhoun.    Ibid.,  1135, 
1140-42,  1150-52. 

2  Cong.  Globe,  30th  Cong.,  1st  Session,  136. 
8  Niles's  Register,  LXXIII,  336. 

*  Cong.  Globe,  26.     Calhoun  wrote  his  daughter  December  26  :  "  The  prospect 


THE  ABSORPTION  OF  MEXICO  235 

These  resolutions  drew  from  Cass  a  few  days  later  the 
wonderful  assertion  that  "there  is  no  man  in  this  nation  in 
favor  of  the  extinction  of  the  Nationality  of  Mexico." 
Whereupon  Calhoun  rejoined :  "  Why,  you  can  hardly  read 
a  newspaper  without  finding  it  filled  with  speculation  upon 
this  subject.  The  proceedings  that  took  place  in  Ohio  at  a 
dinner  given  to  one  of  the  volunteer  officers  of  the  army 
returned  from  Mexico  show  conclusively  that  the  impression 
entertained  by  the  persons  present  was,  that  our  troops  would 
never  leave  Mexico  until  they  had  conquered  the  whole  coun 
try.  This  was  the  sentiment  advanced  by  the  officer  and  it 
was  applauded  by  the  assembly,  and  endorsed  by  the  official 
paper  of  that  State."1 

Calhoun  put  the  case  even  more  strongly  in  his  speech  in 
the  Senate,  January  4:  "There  was  at  that  time  \i.  e.,  at  the 
beginning  of  the  session]  a  party  scattered  all  over  every  por 
tion  of  the  country  in  favor  of  conquering  the  whole  of  Mex 
ico.  To  prove  that  such  was  the  case,  it  is  only  necessary 
to  refer  to  the  proceedings  of  numerous  large  public  meet 
ings,  to  declarations  repeatedly  made  in  the  public  journals, 
and  to  the  opinions  expressed  by  the  officers  of  the  army  and 
individuals  of  standing  and  influence,  to  say  nothing  of  dec 
larations  made  here  and  in  the  other  House  of  Congress."2 
Some  of  these  expressions  may  be  briefly  noticed.  General 
John  A.  Quitman,  one  of  the  most  energetic  of  the  army 

is,  that  I  shall  he  able  to  cnrry  them  [i.  e.,  the  resolutions].  If  I  should,  it  will  do 
much  to  arrest  the  war.  If  they  should  be  defeated,  we  may  look  for  the  entire 
conquest  and  subjugation  of  Mexico.  What  a  fearful  result  it  will  be  for  our 
country  and  institutions  !  "  Correspondence,  741. 

1  Cong.  Globe,  30th  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  Ibid.,  54. 

2  Quoted  by  Von  Holstflll,  343.    Of.  Niles's  Register,  LXXTII,  334.    For  the 
whole  speech  see  Calhoun 's  Works,  IV,  396-424.    A  writer  in  the  Charleston  Courier 
affirmed  :  "  Most  of  the  leading  Democratic  papers  openly  advocate  that  policy." 
Niles,  LXXIII,  354.     Calhoun  wrote  his  son-in-law,   February  4  :  "  My  speech 
has  had  a  very  wide  circulation  and  the  impression  is  that  it  made  a  deeper  im 
pression  than  any  I  ever  delivered.     It  brought  to  the  surface  the  strong  feeling 
which  has  been  working  below  in  favor  of  the  conquest  and  holding  as  a  Province, 
or  annexing  all  Mexico  ;  and  which  I  can  hardly  doubt,  if  not  intended,  was  looked 
to  by  the  administration  as  not  an  undesirable  result."     Correspondence,  742. 


236  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

officers,  subsequently  a  persistent  advocate  of  the  acquisition 
of  Cuba,  arrived  in  Washington  in  December  and  presented 
a  plan  to  the  President  for  a  permanent  occupation  of  Mex 
ico.1  Commodore  Stockton,  the  Dewey  of  the  conquest  of 
California,  at  a  great  dinner  given  in  his  honor  the  30th  of 
December,  advocated,  not  the  annexation,  but  the  occupation 
of  Mexico  until  that  people  should  be  completely  regener 
ated,  and  would  accept  civil  and  religious  liberty  and  main 
tain  a  genuine  republic.2 

The  National  Era,  the  organ  of  antislavery,  advocated  the 
absorption  of  Mexico  by  the  admission  to  the  Union  of  indi 
vidual  Mexican  states  as  fast  as  they  should  apply.  The  dis 
rupted  condition  of  Mexico  would  favor  this  solution.3 

In  New  York  the  Hunker  Democrats  came  out  strongly. 
The  "Address  to  the  Democracy  of  New  York, "  unanimously 
adopted  by  the  Syracuse  Convention,  explains  that  as  the 
purpose  of  the  occupation  of  Mexico  is  to  advance  human 
rights,  such  occupation  is  miscalled  a  conquest.  "It  is  no 
more  than  the  restoration  of  moral  rights  by  legal  means." 
The  field  for  such  a  work  is  "  opened  to  us  by  the  conduct 
of  Mexico,  and  such  moral  and  legal  means  are  offered  for 
our  use.  Shall  we  occupy  it?  Shall  we  now  run  with 

1  Claiborne's  Quitman,  II,  79. 

2  Niles's  Register,  LXXIII,  335.   The  following  passage  is  quoted  from  the  New 
York  Post  in  Niles's  Register,  LXXIII,  334,  in  article  on  "  Manifest  Destiny  " : 
"  Now  we  ask  whether  any  man  can  coolly  contemplate  the  idea  of  recalling  our 
troops  from  the  territory  we  at  present  occupy,  from  Mexico  —  from  San  Juan 
de  Ulloa  —  from  Monterey  —  from  Puebla  —  and  thus  by  one  stroke  of  a  secre 
tary's  pen,  resign  this  beautiful  country  to  the  custody  of  the  ignorant  cowards 
and  profligate  ruffians   who   have   ruled   it   the   last   twenty-five  years.     Why, 
humanity  cries  out  against  it.     Civilization  and  Christianity  protest  against  this 
reflux  of  the  tide  of  barbarism  and  anarchy."     I  have  not  had  an  opportunity  to 
read  the  article  in  the  Post  to  determine  whether  it  was  wholly  serious.    Nor  is  it, 
perhaps,  of  especial  importance,  for  if  a  parody,  it  bears  witness  no  less  to  preva 
lent  opinion. 

8  The  National  Era,  Aug.  19,  1847.  The  article  fills  three  and  one-half 
columns.  The  plan  was  presented  again  February  3,  1848.  As  these  Mexican 
accessions  would  probably  have  preserved  their  non-slaveholding  character,  the 
number  of  free  states  would  have  been  immensely  reinforced  by  any  such 
proceeding. 


THE  ABSORPTION  OF  MEXICO  237 

manly  vigor  the  race  that  is  set  before  us?  Or  shall  we 
yield  to  the  suggestions  of  a  sickly  fanaticism,  or  sink  into 
an  enervating  slumber?  .  .  .  We  feel  no  emotion  but  pity 
for  those  whose  philanthropy,  or  patriotism,  or  religion,  has 
led  them  to  believe  that  they  can  prescribe  a  better  course  of 
duty  than  that  of  the  God  who  made  us  all."1 

January  12,  Senator  Rusk  of  Texas  called  on  the  Presi 
dent  to  request  him  not  to  commit  himself  further  against 
the  annexation  of  all  of  Mexico.  Polk  told  him  that  his 
views  had  been  distinctly  stated  in  his  message,  and  that  his 
mind  had  not  changed. 

As  in  our  own  day  foreign  pressure  in  this  direction  was 
not  lacking.  More  than  a  year  earlier  Bancroft  wrote 
Buchanan  from  London:  "People  are  beginning  to  say  that 
it  would  be  a  blessing  to  the  world  if  the  United  States 
would  assume  the  tutelage  of  Mexico."2  Rumors,  too,  were 
current  of  a  rising  annexationist  party  in  Mexico.3 

The  foregoing  all  show  that  the  agitation  for  "  all  of  Mex 
ico  "  was  well  started  and  needed  only  time  to  become  really 
formidable.  It  was  deprived  of  that  requisite  element  of 
time  by  the  astonishing  course  of  Trist,  who  despite  his  re 
call  still  lingered  with  Scott's  army  and  finally  negotiated  a 
treaty  on  the  lines  of  Folk's  ultimatum.  How  this  conduct 
struck  the  President  can  best  be  told  in  his  own  words. 
When  he  heard,  January  4,  that  Trist  had  renewed  negotia 
tions,  he  entered  in  his  diary:  "This  information  is  most 

1  Niles's  Register,  LXXIII,  391. 

2  G.  T.  Curtis's  Buchanan,  I,  576.     In  this  connection  it  is  interesting  to  com 
pare  the  forecast,  at  a  somewhat  later  date,  of  Alexander  yon  Humboldt :  "Die 
Vereinigten  Staaten  werden  ganz  Mexico  an  sich  reissen  und  dann  selbst  zerfal- 
len."     Roscher,  Kolonien,  Kofonialpolitik  und  Auswanderung,  177. 

3  In  a  letter  to  Calhoun  from  one  John  G.  Tod,  dated  City  of  Mexico,  April 
5,  1848,  it  asserted  that  "Many  good  Mexicans,  however,  do  not  desire  Peace, 
they  want  the  Country  to  be  occupied  by  our  Troops,  this  policy  gives  them  an 
assurance  of  security  for  life  and  property,  and  affords  them  a  prospect  of  dimin 
ishing  the  power  and  influence  of  the  Church."     Correspondence,  1163.     Cf.  the 
citation  by  Von  Hoist,  III,  342,  from  Hodgson's  Cradle  of  the   Confederacy,  251- 
252,  in  regard  to  the  annexation  party  in  Mexico.     Hodgson's  estimate,  however, 
must  be  greatly  exaggerated. 


238  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

surprising.  Mr.  T.  has  acknowledged  the  receipt  of  his 
letter  of  recall,  and  he  possesses  no  diplomatic  powers.  He 
is  acting  no  doubt  upon  General  Scott's  advice.  He  has 
become  the  perfect  tool  of  Scott.  He  is  in  this  measure 
defying  the  authority  of  his  government.  .  .  .  He  may,  I 
fear,  greatly  embarrass  the  government."  On  the  15th  came 
a  long  despatch  from  Trist,  which  Polk  declared  "  the  most 
extraordinary  document  I  have  ever  heard  from  a  Diplo 
matic  Representative.  His  despatch  is  arrogant,  impudent, 
and  very  insulting  to  his  government  and  was  personally 
offensive  to  the  President.  He  admits  he  is  acting  without 
authority  and  in  violation  of  the  positive  order  recalling  him. 
It  is  manifest  to  me  that  he  has  become  the  tool  of  General 
Scott  and  his  menial  instrument,  and  that  the  paper  was 
written  at  Scott's  instance  and  dictation.  I  have  never  in 
my  life  felt  so  indignant,  and  the  whole  Cabinet  expressed 
themselves  as  I  felt." 

Buchanan  was  directed  to  prepare  a  stern  rebuke  to  Trist, 
and  Marcy  to  write  Scott  to  order  him  to  leave  the  head 
quarters  of  the  army. 

January  23,  Senators  Cass  and  Sevier  advised  the  Presi 
dent  to  inform  the  Mexican  government  that  Trist  had  been 
recalled.  The  next  day  Buchanan  thought  such  a  letter 
proper  if  Polk  had  made  up  his  mind  to  reject  the  treaty. 
This  Buchanan  thought  should  be  done.  Polk  said  he  could 
not  decide  till  he  saw  the  treaty.  On  the  25th  the  question 
was  put  before  the  cabinet.  Walker  agreed  with  Buchanan. 
In  regard  to  the  treaty  Polk  said  that  if  "unembarrassed  "  he 
"would  not  now  approve  such  a  treaty,"  but  was  now  in 
doubt  about  his  duty.  Buchanan  still  favored  rejection, 
while  Marcy  was  in  favor  of  approval  if  the  treaty  were  on 
the  lines  of  the  ultimatum,  and  John  Y.  Mason  took  sides 
with  Marcy.  It  was  finally  decided  on  the  28th  to  despatch 
the  letter  to  the  Mexican  government.  The  next  entry  of 
importance  records  the  arrival  of  the  treaty  after  nightfall, 
February  19.  Polk  found  it  within  Trist's  original  instruc 
tions  as  regards  boundary  limits  and  thought  that  it  should 


THE  ABSORPTION  OF  MEXICO  239 

be  judged  on  its  merits  and  not  prejudiced  by  Trist's  bad 
conduct.  The  next  evening,  Sunday,  the  cabinet  discussed 
the  treaty.  Buchanan  and  Walker  advised  its  rejection. 
Mason,  Marcy,  Johnson,  and  Clifford  favored  its  acceptance. 
Buchanan  announced  that  he  "  wanted  more  territory  and 
would  not  be  content  with  less  than  the  lines  of  Sierra 
Madre  in  addition  to  the  Provinces  secured  in  this  treaty." 
Polk  reminded  Buchanan  of  his  entire  change  of  position 
during  the  war  and  adds  in  his  diary  that  he  believed  the 
true  reason  of  Buchanan's  course  to  be  that  he  was  a  can 
didate  for  the  presidency.  If  the  treaty  were  well  received 
he  would  not  be  injured,  if  opposed  he  could  say  that  he 
opposed  it. 

February  21,  the  President  made  known  his  decision  to 
the  cabinet:  "That  under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case, 
I  would  submit  it  to  the  Senate  for  ratification,  with  a  rec 
ommendation  to  strike  out  the  10th  Art.  I  assigned  my  rea 
sons  for  this  decision.  They  were  briefly,  that  the  Treaty 
conformed  on  the  main  question  of  limits  and  boundary  to 
the  instructions  given  Mr.  Trist  in  April  last  —  and  that 
though  if  the  Treaty  was  now  to  be  made,  I  should  demand 
more,  perhaps,  to  make  the  Sierra  Madre  the  line,  yet  it  was 
doubtful  whether  this  could  be  ever  obtained  by  the  consent 
of  Mexico.  I  looked  to  the  consequences  of  its  rejection. 
A  majority  of  one  branch  of  Congress  is  opposed  to  my  ad 
ministration ;  they  have  falsely  charged  that  the  war  was 
brought  on  and  is  continued  by  me,  with  a  view  to  the  con 
quest  of  Mexico,  and  if  I  were  now  to  reject  a  Treaty  made 
upon  my  own  terms  as  authorized  in  April  last,  with  the 
unanimous  approbation  of  the  Cabinet,  the  probability  is, 
that  Congress  would  not  grant  either  men  or  money  to 
prosecute  the  war.  Should  this  be  the  result,  the  army  now 
in  Mexico  would  be  constantly  wasting  and  diminishing  in 
numbers,  and  I  might  at  last  be  compelled  to  withdraw 
them,  and  then  lose  the  two  provinces  of  New  Mexico  and 
Upper  California  which  were  ceded  to  us  by  this  Treaty. 
Should  the  opponents  of  my  administration  succeed  in  carry- 


240  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

ing  the  next  Presidential  election,  the  great  probability  is 
that  the  country  would  lose  all  the  advantages  secured  by 
this  Treaty.  I  adverted  to  the  immense  value  of  Upper 
California,  and  concluded  by  saying  that  if  I  were  now  to 
reject  my  own  terms  as  offered  in  April  last,  I  did  not  see 
how  it  was  possible  for  my  administration  to  be  sustained."1 

The  rumor  soon  spread  in  Washington  that  Buchanan  and 
Walker  were  exerting  their  influence  to  have  the  treaty  re 
jected.  On  the  28th,  Senator  Sevier,  the  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  informs  the  President  that 
the  committee  will  recommend  the  rejection  of  the  treaty 
and  advise  sending  a  commission.  The  other  members  of 
the  committee  were  Webster,  Benton,  Mangum,  and  Hanne- 
gan.  Polk  declared  his  opinion  unchanged,  and  expressed 
his  belief  that  Webster's  object  was  to  defeat  the  treaty. 
Sevier  said  Webster  wanted  no  territory  beyond  the  Rio 
Grande,  and  Polk  comments  in  his  diary :  "  Extremes  meet. 
Mr.  Webster  is  for  no  territory  and  Mr.  Hannegan  is  for  all 
Mexico.  Benton's  position  cannot  be  calculated."  Polk 
concludes  his  entry  with :  "  If  the  treaty  in  its  present  form 
is  ratified,  there  will  be  added  to  the  United  States  an  im 
mense  Empire,  the  value  of  which  twenty  years  hence  it 
would  be  difficult  to  calculate."  It  was  surely  the  irony  of 
fate  that  the  eyes  of  this  resolute  Augustus,  enlarger  of 
empire,  were  so  soon  closed  in  death  and  that  he  was  not 
suffered  to  see  in  the  consequences  of  his  policy  the  fulfil 
ment  at  once  of  the  most  dismal  prognostications  of  its 
opponents  and  of  his  own  confident  prophecy. 

For  several  days  the  treaty  hung  in  the  balance.  On  Feb 
ruary  29,  Polk  records :  "  From  what  I  learn,  about  a  dozen 
Democrats  will  oppose  it,  most  of  them  because  they  wish  to 
acquire  more  territory  than  the  line  of  the  Rio  Grande  and 
the  Provinces  of  New  Mexico  and  Upper  California  will 

1  Calhoun  wrote  his  son,  February  23  :  "  The  treaty  with  Mexico  has  just  been 
laid  before  the  Senate  and  read.  It  will  be  warmly  opposed,  but  I  think  it  will  be 
approved  by  the  body.  It  will  be  a  fortunate  deliverance  if  it  should  be."  Cor 
respondence,  744. 


THE  ABSORPTION  OF  MEXICO  241 

secure."  On  March  2,  the  outlook  appeared  more  hopeful; 
on  the  third  Benton  and  Webster  are  recorded  as  the  leading 
opponents.  The  suspense  came  to  an  end,  March  10,  when 
the  treaty  was  ratified  at  10  p.  M.,  38  to  14,  four  senators  not 
voting. 

The  reception  of  the  treaty  and  its  recommendation  to  the 
Senate  clearly  defined  the  position  of  the  administration  and 
tended  to  discourage  the  advocates  of  "all  of  Mexico."  If 
Trist  had  returned  as  ordered  and  the  war  had  been  pro 
longed,  we  should  probably  have  acquired  more  territory, 
but  how  much  more  is  of  course  uncertain.  Calhoun  in  his 
opposition  realized  that  every  delay  in  bringing  the  war  to  a 
close  would  strengthen  the  expansion  party  and  complicate 
the  situation  in  ways  that  would  contribute  to  advance  their 
cause.1  We  can  best  realize  the  importance  of  the  element 
of  time  in  this  matter  and  so  appreciate  the  significance  of 
Trist 's  unexpected  action  in  securing  a  treaty  if  we  remem 
ber  how  long  it  took  after  the  battle  of  Manila  Bay  for  the 
final  policy  of  acquiring  all  the  Philippines  to  be  developed. 
Trist's  treaty  arrived  about  four  months  after  the  news  of 
the  capture  of  Mexico  City  and  it  was  at  least  four  months 
and  a  half  after  the  battle  of  Manila  Bay  before  the  present 
administration  decided  to  demand  all  of  the  Philippines. 
Nor  must  we  forget  in  this  comparison  that  the  formation 
and  expression  of  public  opinion  through  the  agency  of  the 
press  proceeds  to-day  at  a  much  more  rapid  pace  than  fifty 
years  ago. 

In  conclusion,  then,  in  answer  to  the  question  how  we 
escaped  the  annexation  of  all  of  Mexico  in  1847-48,  the  fol 
lowing  reasons  may  be  assigned:  The  growing  realization 
that  territorial  expansion  and  the  extension  of  slavery  were 
so  inextricably  involved  with  each  other  that  every  acces- 

1  As  late  as  May  22,  1848,  when  it  was  still  doubtful  whether  Mexico  would 
ratify  the  Trist  Treaty,  Calhoun  wrote  his  brother-in-law :  "  Should  it  not  be 
ratified,  there  will  be  a  great  effort  made  to  take  the  Whole."  —  Correspondence, 
pp.  755-56.  Calhoun  believed  that  it  had  been  the  intention  of  the  administration 
"  to  conquer  and  annex  the  country."  —  Letter  to  the  same,  April  15,  Correspon 
dence,  751. 

16 


242  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

sion  of  territory  would  precipitate  a  slavery  crisis  powerfully 
counteracted  the  natural  inclinations  of  the  people  toward 
expansion  which  are  so  clearly  revealed  to-day.  Second,  the 
fact  that  the  elections  for  the  Congress  that  met  in  Decem 
ber,  1847,  took  place  over  a  year  earlier,  before  the  great 
military  victories  of  1847  had  begun  to  undermine  the  first 
revulsion  from  a  war  of  conquest,  gave  the  control  of  the 
House  to  the  Whigs,  who  as  a  party  were  committed  against 
conquest  and  annexation.  Thirdly,  there  was  the  opposition 
of  President  Polk,  who  effectually  controlled  the  policy  of 
the  government;  and  finally,  the  lack  of  time  for  the 
movement  to  gather  sufficient  headway  to  overcome  these 
obstacles. 


LEOPOLD  VON  RANKE 


LEOPOLD  VON  EANKE1 

A  LITTLE  more  than  sixty  years  ago  the  expectation  had 
become  general  that  historical  research  would  be  as  charac 
teristic  a  note  of  the  nineteenth  century  as  philosophical 
speculation  had  been  of  the  eighteenth.2  It  is  hardly  pos 
sible  so  soon  to  decide  what  has  been  the  dominant  intel 
lectual  characteristic  of  our  century,3  but  certainly,  in  the 
increase  of  positive  historical  knowledge,  the  elaboration  of 
sound  historical  method,  the  enlargement  of  the  range  of  his 
torical  evidence,  and  especially  in  the  development  of  the 
historical  way  of  looking  at  things,  the  nineteenth  century 
stands  out  conspicuous  above  any  century  since  the  Renais 
sance.  To  these  immense  changes  no  one  contributed  so 
much  as  Leopold  von  Ranke,  the  centenary  of  whose  birth 
was  celebrated  last  week.4 

That  the  American  Historical  Association  should  observe 
in  some  way  this  anniversary  is  fitting  for  general  reasons, 
and,  in  particular,  because  Ranke  was  an  honorary  member 
of  our  organization.  It  is  not  my  purpose  to-night  to  pre 
sent  a  general  account  of  Ranke's  life.  That  was  done  in  a 

1  An  address  before  the  American   Historical  Association  in   Washington, 
December  26,  1895,  in  commemoration  of  the   one  hundredth  anniversary  of 
Ranke's  birth,  December  21,  1795. 

2  "...  cette  opinion,  deja  (i.  e.,  1824-1830)  tres  repandue,  que  1'histoire  serait 
le  cachet  du  dix-neuvieme  siecle,  et  qu'elle  lui  donnerait  son  nom,  comme  la 
philosophie  avait  donne  le  sien  au  dix-huitieme."    Augustin  Thierry,  preface 
to  his  Dix  Ans  d' Etudes  Historiques,  1834. 

3  Comte,  forty  years  ago,  wrote  :  "  Le  siecle  actuel  sera  principalement  carac- 
terise  par  Pirre vocable  preponderance  de  1'histoire  en  philosophie,  en  politique,  et 
meme  en  poesie."    Politique  Positive,  III,  1,  cited  from  Lord  Acton's  The  Study 
of  History,  131. 

*  Ranke  was  born  December  21,  1795. 


246  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

highly  successful  way  by  our  secretary  at  the  Boston  meeting 
in  1887. 1  I  have  in  mind  rather  a  brief  consideration  of 
the  formative  influences  of  Ranke's  career  as  revealed  in  his 
autobiographical  sketches  and  letters,2  the  distinctive  ele 
ments  in  his  aim  and  method,  and  the  influence  of  his  work. 

If  any  man  was  a  born  historian  it  was  Leopold  Ranke,  yet 
he  was  comparatively  late  in  realizing  his  vocation.  When 
at  the  age  of  sixty-eight  he  looked  back  over  his  school 
days,  he  recalled  no  unusual  interest  in  history.  Like  many 
another  boy  of  twelve,  he  was  taken  with  his  teacher's  his 
torical  talks  and  revelled  in  the  tales  of  chivalry,  especially 
those  whose  scenes  were  laid  in  his  native  Thuringia.  The 
boys  played  at  Greeks  and  Trojans,  read  Schiller's  Lager 
and  Napoleon's  Bulletins^  but  of  all  the  impressions  of  the 
time  those  of  the  ancient  world  were  the  strongest.  Later 
at  the  gymnasium,  Schulforte,  these  interests  are  still  upper 
most.  While  there  he  read  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey 
through  three  times  and  fairly  lived  in  the  Homeric  world.4 
At  evening  prayers,  instead  of  listening  to  the  dry  lectures, 
he  read  the  Old  Testament  histories.  All  this  preparation 
was  spontaneous  and  unconscious. 

When  he  went  to  Leipzig,  at  the  age  of  eighteen,  he  still 
had  no  conception  of  history.  The  lectures  of  Wieland,5 
the  professor  of  history,  failed  to  impress  him,  and  from  his 
torical  works  he  was  repelled  by  the  mass  of  undigested 
facts.6  The  lectures  on  church  history  of  Tzschirner  were 

1  H.  B.  Adams  in  Papers  of  the  American  Historical  Association,  III,  101-120; 
also  in  American  Academy  of  Arts  and  Sciences,  XXII,  part  2,  542-558. 

2  As  found  in  Zur  Eiyenen  Lebensgesckichte,  von  Leopold  von  Ranke.     Herausge- 
gebeu  von  Alfred  Dove,  Leipzig,  1890.    All  citations,  unless  otherwise  indicated, 
are  from  this  volume. 

8  Dictation  of  October,  1863,  page  15.  Their  knowledge  of  the  Trojan  War 
was  derived  from  Becker's  Erzahlungen. 

4  Page  21. 

5  Ranke  tells  us  that  Wieland  sputtered  so  that  it  moistened  the  paper  of 
those  who  sat  on  the  front  seat.     On  one  occasion  these  victims  raised  a  red 
umbrella,  so  as  to  take  notes  in  shelter.     The  kindly  professor  took  it  in  good 
part.     Page  28. 

6  Pages  28,  59. 


LEOPOLD    VON  RANKE  247 

more  satisfactory,  and  lie  went  home  from  them  "with  the 
incitement  to  study  the  great  persons,  the  mighty  leaders  of 
literature  in  mediaeval  and  modern  times."1  During  the 
earlier  years  at  Leipzig  his  studies  were  mainly  Old  and 
New  Testament  Introduction  and  New  Testament  Interpre 
tation.  Doctrinal  studies  did  not  attract  him,  and  the  preva 
lent  rationalism  awakened  no  sympathy.  It  is  interesting 
to  note  that  he  made  a  thorough  historical  study  of  the 
Psalms,2  trying  to  connect  one  and  another  with  specific 
events  in  the  history  of  the  kings.  To  the  stimulating  in 
struction  of  Hermann  and  Beck  in  philology  he  always 
looked  back  with  gratitude.  Hermann  taught  him  to  under 
stand  Pindar,  who,  with  the  tragedians,  remained  a  favorite 
among  the  poets.  Thucydides  he  studied  with  especial  thor 
oughness,  making  many  extracts  of  his  political  teachings. 

The  first  German  historical  work  that  impressed  him  was 
Niebuhr's  Roman  History ',  and  it  exercised  the  greatest  in 
fluence  on  his  historical  studies.  At  first,  however,  he  did 
not  fully  appreciate  its  scientific  significance,  and  it  served 
mainly  as  a  stimulus  to  his  classical  studies.  It  breathed 
the  classical  atmosphere,  calling  to  mind  the  great  writers 
of  antiquity  and  convincing  him  that  there  might  be  mod 
ern  historians.  Among  the  other  literary  influences  of  this 
period  were  Fichte's  Addresses  to  the  German  Nation,3  and 
like  all  his  fellow-students  he  greatly  admired  Goethe.  Of 
more  importance,  however,  was  his  resorting  to  Luther's 
works  to  learn  modern  German  at  the  fountain  head.  In  so 
doing  he  became  so  absorbed  in  their  contents  and  so  im 
pressed  with  Luther's  greatness  that,  in  1817,  when  public 
interest  in  Luther  was  revived  by  the  tercentenary  of  the 
Reformation,  he  essayed  a  life  of  the  reformer.  To  the  young 
student  fresh  from  the  study  of  Luther's  own  writings  the 
current  popular  accounts  seemed  feeble.  The  project,  how 
ever,  proved  beyond  his  resources.3 

In  1818  Ranke  went  to  Frankfort-on-the-Oder  to  take  a 
position  not  unlike  that  of  a  professor  of  ancient  languages 

1  Tages  29,  60.  2  Pages  31,  41,  59.  8  Pages  31,  59. 


248  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

in  a  New  England  college  fifty  years  ago.  He  had  to  teach 
Latin  and  Greek  and  the  history  of  classical  literature,  con 
ducting  sometimes  as  many  as  thirty-three  exercises  weekly. 
The  transition,  he  tells  us,1  from  philological  studies  which 
comprise  the  historical  to  the  actually  historical  was  very 
easy,  and  it  was  helped  by  the  task  of  teaching  the  history 
of  ancient  literature.  To  do  this  from  the  customary  hand 
books  he  found  contrary  to  his  nature  and  feeling.  The 
authors  of  some  of  them  apparently  had  not  even  read  the 
prefaces  of  the  works  they  discussed,  to  say  nothing  of 
the  works  themselves.  He  based  his  lectures  on  his  own 
personal  study  of  the  authors.  In  the  course  of  his  prepara 
tion  he  read  the  ancient  historians  systematically.  In  the 
universal  outlook  of  Herodotus  he  found  something  especially 
congenial  to  his  mind.  His  teaching  of  the  classical  authors 
became  more  and  more  imbued  with  the  historical  spirit.  He 
taught  them  as  monuments  of  antiquity. 

That  Ranke,  with  his  heavy  burden  of  teaching,  founded 
his  lectures  on  personal  study  of  the  sources  shows  the  ex 
traordinary  stuff  of  which  he  was  made.  The  classical  his 
torians  were  followed  by  the  post-classical,  and  those  by  the 
mediaeval  so  far  as  they  were  accessible.  Thus  early  he 
started  on  the  straight  and  narrow  path  of  historical  science 
—  "  critical  study  of  the  genuine  sources  "  —  from  which  he 
never  departed. 

This  is  one  of  the  great  characteristics  of  Ranke,  and  one 
of  the  secrets  of  his  success.  He  expended  very  little  time 
at  any  period  of  his  career  on  secondary  sources.  The 
method  was  laborious,  but  every  day's  work  told,  and  little 
had  to  be  done  over,  or  unlearned.  Even  while  at  Leipzig 
he  had  been  led  to  the  sources  of  medieval  history  by  his 
friend  Stenzel,  at  whose  rooms  he  saw  for  the  first  time  a 
collection  of  the  Scriptores*  and  began  to  read  them  —  much 
as  Luther  saw  and  read  his  first  Bible  at  Erfurt.  At  Frank 
fort  it  was  almost  with  rapture  that  he  read  in  Grotius's 
edition  of  Jordanes  and  Paulus  Diaconus,  the  story  of  the 

1  Page  39.  a  Page  649. 


LEOPOLD   VON  RANKE  249 

German  Migration.1  In  an  old  library  he  found  other  col 
lections  of  the  mediaeval  historians,  and  came  to  know  the 
mediaeval  empire.2  Thence  he  passed  on  with  the  old  French 
chroniclers  till  the  fifteenth  century,  when  his  greatest  in 
terest  was  aroused.  In  this  field,  at  the  age  of  twenty-six, 
he  must  tarry  and  begin  to  write. 

What  parallel  to  that  course  can  be  mentioned?  That 
ardent,  penetrating  spirit,  saturating  itself  with  all  the  rich 
ness  of  ancient  life  and  thought  and  then  following  the  ages 
down,  gaining  everywhere  first-hand  impressions,  and  then 
pausing  in  the  age  when  the  seeds  planted  by  antiquity  were 
beginning  to  sprout,  to  enter  upon  a  career  destined  to  be 
one  of  the  most  remarkable  in  the  whole  range  of  historical 
literature ! 

These  six  years  at  Frankfort  are  the  critical  period  of  his 
life.  Here  he  began  his  systematic  studies,  laying  a  broad 
and  solid  foundation  for  his  work  at  Berlin.  Here  he  real 
ized  his  calling,  and  the  pages  of  his  letters  glow  at  times 
with  a  fairly  religious  enthusiasm  for  history.3  Here  he  did 
the  critical  work  which  opened  a  new  epoch  in  historical 
study. 

During  this  period,  Ranke  tells  us,  Scott's  novels  were 
contributing  powerfully  toward  awakening  historic  feeling 
and  sympathy  with  the  past.  On  himself  the  effect  was 
striking;  he  was  interested  in  them,  but  his  historic  sense 
was  offended  by  Scott's  romantic  liberties  with  the  facts  in 
Quentin  Durward.  He  believed  that  the  historical  narrative 
as  handed  down  by  Comines  was  finer  and  more  interesting 
than  the  fiction.  He  turned  away  from  it  and  resolved  in 
his  works  to  avoid  all  imaginary  and  fictitious  elements  and 
to  stick  strictly  to  the  facts.4  The  words  of  the  preface  of 
his  first  book  record  this  purpose  with  classic  simplicity: 
"To  history  has  been  attributed  the  function  to  judge  the 
past,  to  instruct  ourselves  for  the  advantage  of  the  future. 

1  Page  61.  2  Page  32. 

3  See  the  letter  to  his  brother  Henry,  February  18,  1824,  p.  121. 

*  Page  61. 


250  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

Such  a  lofty  function  the  present  work  does  not  attempt.  It 
aims  merely  to  show  how  it  actually  took  place."  "Rigor 
ous  presentation  of  the  facts,  however  conditional  and  lack 
ing  in  beauty  they  may  be,  is  without  question  the  supreme 
law."1 

Having  denned  the  duty  of  the  historian  the  next  question 
was  to  show  how  it  might  be  performed.  Was  it  possible  to 
get  at  the  facts  when  two  contemporary  historians  of  accepted 
authority  like  Jovius  and  Guicciardini  gave  irreconcilable 
accounts  of  the  same  thing?  Ranke's  answer  to  this  as 
well  as  to  the  other  questions  which  confront  the  student 
of  the  multifarious  sources  of  modern  history  was  given  in 
his  Kritik  der  neuerer  Geschichtsschreiber.  It  was  the  sys 
tematic  application  of  what  is  now  familiarly  known  as  the 
"higher  criticism"2  to  works  written  since  the  invention  of 
printing.  The  perception  of  the  necessity  of  applying  these 
principles  of  historical  criticism  which  have  now  become  the 
common  property  of  the  learned  world,  to  this  new  field  and 
the  brilliant  success  in  so  doing  were  Ranke's  great  contribu 
tion  to  historical  science.3 

His  thoroughgoing  investigation  for  this  work  convinced 
him  of  the  necessity  of  examining  unprinted  sources,  to  be 
able  properly  to  continue.4  Toward  the  end  of  1824  we  find 
him  trying  to  secure  the  loan  of  manuscripts  from  Berlin, 
Vienna,  Munich,  Zurich,  Bern,  Paris,  and  Rome.5  "I  am 
now  studying,"  he  writes  his  brother  in  February,  1825, 

1  Gesch.  der  rom.  und  germ.  Vfilker,  vii. 

2  The  principles  of  internal  criticism  had  been  gradually  developed  in  the 
parallel  but  relatively  disconnected  fields  of  the  Old  Testament  literature  and  the 
Homeric  poems.     In  Ranke's  youth  the  two  great  masters  in  these  respective 
fields  were  De  Wette  and  Wolf.      Ranke  early  tried  his  hand  on  the  historical 
criticism  of  the  Psalms  and  on  Homeric  analysis.     Pages,  29  and  39. 

8  Ranke  was  not  absolutely  a  pioneer  in  this.  Munoz  had  pointed  the  way  in 
his  Historia  del  Nuevo  Mundo  in  1793,  in  the  preface  to  which  he  criticises  the 
earlier  writers  on  the  discovery  of  America  and  indicates  the  sources  from  which 
their  narratives  are  derived.  It  does  not  appear,  however,  that  Ranke  was 
familiar  with  Munoz's  work. 

*  Page  63. 

6  Page  139. 


LEOPOLD   VON  RANKE  251 

"  later  modern  history.  Would  I  might  be  a  Moses  in  this 
desert  to  strike  and  bring  forth  the  water  which  is  certainly 
in  its  depths."1  His  book  in  a  few  months  brought  him  an 
assistant  professorship  at  Berlin,  where  his  work  was  light 2 
and  he  could  devote  all  his  time  to  research.  In  the  royal 
library  at  Berlin  he  discovered  a  collection  of  forty-eight 
folio  volumes  of  manuscripts  consisting  mainly  of  Venetian 
Relazioni.  Nobody  had  ever  utilized  them.  Johannes  von 
Mu'ller,  twenty  years  before,  planned  to  publish  extracts  from 
them,  but  he  had  not  done  so.  Three  more  volumes  were  un 
earthed  at  Gotha,  and  Ranke  bought  still  another.3  Drawn 
on  by  the  irresistible  attractions  of  this  mine  of  unworked 
ore,  he  gave  up  the  project  of  continuing  systematically  his 
first  book,  which  had  stopped  at  the  year  1514,  and  plunged 
into  this  bewildering  mass  of  material,  consisting  of  perhaps 
a  thousand  essays,  covering  most  of  the  years  in  very  un 
equal  detail  from  1550  to  1650.  The  spoil  appeared  in  his 
Fursten  und  Volker  von  Sud-Europa  im  16.  u.  17.  Jahrhun- 
derten.*  In  the  preface  of  twenty-five  pages  he  gave  an 
account  of  the  Venetian  diplomatic  system  and  of  the  value 
of  the  Relazioni  and  of  their  distribution.  His  first  book  had 
procured  him  the  call  to  Berlin ;  this  brought  him  a  commis 
sion  from  the  Prussian  Government  to  go  to  Vienna  and  to 
Italy  to  explore  the  Archives.5  "I  am  headed  for  the  Vene 
tian  Archives, "he  writes;  "here  rests  a  still  unknown  history 
of  Europe."6  The  next  three  years  and  a  half  were  devoted 

1  Page  140.  2  Page  147. 

3  Page   147  and  the  preface  to  Fursten  und  Vb'lker  von  Sild-Europa.     Later 
editions  are  entitled  Die   Osmanen  und  die  spanische  Monarchie.     In  the  eighth 
volume  of  Von  Miiller's  collected  works,  published  in  1810,  after  his  death,  some 
extracts  are  printed,  entitled  Notiz  und  Auszug  des  ersten  Tells  der  Informazioni 
politiche  eines   MS.  auf  der  Kb'nigl.    Bibliothek  zu  Berlin.     Cf.  Eugen  Guglia, 
Leopold  von  Ranke's  Leben  und   Werke,  83. 

4  Translated  as  The  Ottoman  and  Spanish  Empires.     How  many  could  have 
been  satisfied  to  put  forth  a  single  volume  of  less  than  500  pages  as  the  result  of 
so  much  study  of  new  sources  ?     Ranke,  although  a  voluminous  writer,  was 
never  diffuse. 

6  Page  167. 

6  Page  169.    August,  1827. 


252  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

to  research  in  Vienna,  Florence,  Rome,  Naples,  and  other 
cities.  The  wealth  of  material  which  he  discovered  and 
utilized  later  in  his  works  went  far  to  draw  the  veil  from 
this  unknown  history  of  Europe.1  Ranke's  peculiar  service 
at  this  time  consisted  in  opening  up  to  scholars  a  vast  mass 
of  a  kind  of  material  to  which  they  had  previously  resorted 
only  occasionally,  but  from  that  time  diplomatic  material 
has  been  accorded  a  chief  place  among  the  sources.  "The 
ultimate  aim  of  historical  writing  is,"  Ranke  said,  "the 
bringing  before  us  the  whole  truth."  This  new  evidence  he 
prized  as  enabling  us  to  look  upon  the  past  with  the  eyes  of 
contemporaries.  Since  Ranke's  demonstration  of  their  sin 
gular  value,  many  collections  have  been  printed  in  full  and 
many  others  carefully  calendared. 

The  use  of  this  material  exercised  an  important  influence 
over  Ranke's  style  and  method  of  treatment.  These  Rela 
tions  were  clear,  impartial,  and  objective.  The  Venetian 
envoys  aimed  to  present  to  the  home  government  practical 
information  of  the  most  varied  kind.  They  had  every  reason 
to  adhere  to  a  colorless  truthfulness  "to  show  how  things 
actually  happened."  Their  character  sketching  is  simple, 
with  bold  outlines.  In  short,  their  work  made  easier  for  the 
historian  that  objective  presentation  upon  which  he  placed  so 
much  stress.  It  is,  I  think,  safe  to  say  that  the  most  impor 
tant  literary  influence  of  Ranke's  second  period  was  that  of 
the  Venetian  Relations.2  His  most  popular,  and  from  a  liter 
ary  point  of  view  certainly  his  best  work  —  The  History  of 

1  It  is  a  striking  and  interesting  coincidence  that  during  these  years  Jared 
Sparks  was  doing  exactly  the  same  work  for  American  history  that  Ranke  was 
doing  for  European  history.     See,  in  Professor  H.  B.  Adams's  Life  of  Sparks, 
chapters    xiv-xvi,  the  account  of  Sparks's  travels  in  the  United   States  and 
Europe  in  search  of  historical  manuscripts  and  diplomatic  relations. 

2  Dove  writes :    "  Vieles  von   der   speciellen   Kunst  der   Beobachtung    und 
Zeichnung,  die  er  hier  den  klugen  Diplomaten  des  heiligen  Marcus  absah,  hat 
er  bis  in  seine  spatesten  Tage  beibehalten  ;  zumal  seine  lebensvoller  Character- 
bildnisse  verrathen  stets  mehr  oder  weniger  die  Venetianische  Schule."    Art. 
"  Ranke,"  in  Allgemeine  deutsche  Biog.,  252.    Nothing  can  be  clearer,  I  think,  than 
this  stylistic  influence  to  any  one  who  compares  the  styles  of  Ranke's  first  two 
books  with  each  other  and  with  that  of  the  Venetian  Relations. 


LEOPOLD   VON  RANKS  253 

the  Popes  —  was  more  completely  based  on  the  Relations  than 
any  of  his  other  works  save  the  Ottoman  and  Spanish  Mon 
archies.  He  himself  realized  the  influence  upon  his  work 
of  his  materials.  "Der  Stoff  brachte  die  Form  mit  sich,"  he 
writes  in  his  autobiography.1 

But  Ranke 's  work  was  epoch-making,  not  only  in  the 
development  of  criticism  and  in  the  revelation  of  sources, 
but  also  in  teaching.  He  was  the  greatest  of  historical 
teachers,  although  never  a  very  popular  lecturer.2  He  pos 
sessed,  however,  in  a  rare  degree  the  faculty  of  stimulating 
and  drawing  out  the  native  powers  of  his  pupils.  Through 
the  influence  of  his  teaching  and  writing,  and  the  influence 
of  his  pupils  and  their  pupils  unto  the  third  and  fourth 
generation,  the  study  and  teaching  of  history  have  been 
transformed  and  vivified  to  an  extraordinary  degree.  What 
historical  teacher  has  ever  been  able  like  him,  at  88  years  of 
age,  to  say  of  his  early  work  so  truthfully  that  one  feels  no 
sense  of  boasting:  "What  we  then  began  (i.  e.,  in  his  early 
seminar),  the  seed  which  we  planted,  is  now  grown  to  be 
a  great  tree,  so  that  the  birds  of  the  heaven  lodge  in  its 
branches."3 

The  most  distinctive  and  valuable  contribution  of  Ranke" 
to  advanced  historical  teaching  was  the  development  of  the 
seminary  or  practice  work.  Ranke  founded  the  seminary 
method  in  the  teaching  of  history  in  much  the  same  sense 
that  he  discovered  the  Venetian  Relations.  Although  not  in 
either  case  wholly  a  pioneer,  he  was  practically  such.4  While 

1  Page  70.     Compare  the  remark  in  the  preface  of  the  Gesch.  der  rom.  und 
germ.  Volker,  7,  "  Aus  Absicht  und  Stoff  entsteht  die  Form."     His  explanation 
of  the  fact  that  his   German  History  during  the  Reformation  was  less  attractive 
in  style  than  the  History  of  the  Popes  was  that  the  German  History  was  based,  to 
a  considerable  degree,  on  crabbed  reports  of  the  proceedings  of  Diets  and  other 
material  much  cruder  in  form  than  Venetian  Relations. 

2  As  a  lecturer  he  preferred  subjects  in  general  history  and  to  cover  a  long 
period.     The  largest  attendance  he  ever  had  was  in  the  winter  of  1841-42,  when 
he  lectured  on  recent  history;  the  maximum  attendance  then  was  153.    Dove, 
art.  "  Ranke,"  in  Allgemeine  deutsche  Biog.,  258. 

3  Page  469. 

*  Wilken,  for  example,  the  historian  of  the  Crusades,  had  a  seminary  in 


254  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

a  student  at  Leipzig,  •  Ranke  had  been  a  member  of  the  philo 
logical  seminaries  of  Hermann  and  Beck.1  In  these  courses 
he  became  familiar  with  the  methods  of  these  eminent 
teachers  in  training  students  in  independent  work.  Soon 
after  he  began  his  teaching  at  Berlin,  in  the  summer  of 
1825,  in  accordance  with  a  suggestion  from  his  friend  Karl 
von  Raumer,  the  brother  of  the  historian,  Ranke  announced 
that  in  the  fall  semester  he  would  conduct  a  practice  course 
(historische  Uebungen).2  Karl  von  Raumer  was  then  profes 
sor  of  natural  science  at  Erlangen  and  was  a  man  ever  active 
in  elaborating  successful  methods  of  teaching.  Ranke  writes 
him,  July  12,  1825,  "I  have  profited  by  your  advice  and  an 
nounced  '  historische  Uebungen  for  next  term.'  "  3  That  he 
carried  out  the  project  is  confirmed  by  his  own  statement  in 
1837 :  "  It  has  been  a  delight  to  me  since  the  beginning  of 
my  university  activity  to  carry  on  historische  Uebungen."4 
Owing  to  Ranke's  tour  in  Italy,  the  continuous  life  of  the 
seminary  did  not  begin  until  1831. 5  The  years  next  follow 
ing  were  the  most  fruitful.  Ranke  set  his  students  at  work 
on  the  Middle  Ages,  the  period  on  which  he  had  prepared 
himself  at  Frankfort.6  Only  those  who  expected  to  make 
history  their  profession  were  admitted  to  the  course,  and  the 
members  were  taught  method  by  his  guidance  without  much 
theorizing.  He  allowed  them  free  choice  of  subjects,  but 
was  always  ready  to  suggest  problems.  His  three  injunc 
tions  were  criticism,  precision,  penetration.7 

Berlin,  but  it  exerted  no  such  influence  as  Ranke's.  Wilken  is  not  mentioned 
in  Ranke's  letters. 

1  Page  34  and  Koechly,  Gottfried  Hermann,  257. 

2  In  the  official  Latin,  "  Exercitationes  historicae." 

3  Page  148. 

4  Ranke,  Werlce,  LII,  479. 

5  Dove,  in  his  sketch  of  Ranke  in  the  Allgemeine  deutsche  Biographic,  gives 
1833  as  the  date  of  the  starting  of  Ranke's  seminar  after  his  return;  but  the 
evidence  of  Ranke's  own  words  seems  in  favor  of  the  date  in  the  text,  and 
Giesebrecht  gives  1831.     Gedachtnissrede  anf  Leopold  von  Ranke,  11. 

6  Page  649. 

7  The  most  interesting  accounts  of  Ranke's  seminary  work  are  those  given  by 
himself  in  the  preface  to  the  Jahrbiicher  des  Deutschen  Reiches  unter  dem  Sachs- 


LEOPOLD   VON  RANKE  255 

It  is  unnecessary  in  this  place  to  enlarge  upon  the  results 
of  this  work.  A  large  proportion  of  the  German  historians 
for  the  next  two  generations  were  thus  trained  by  Ranke  or 
his  pupils.  Waitz,  in  particular,  at  Gottingen  conducted  a 
seminary  with  brilliant  results,  and  "proved  himself,  next 
to  Ranke,  the  most  successful  founder,  and  leader  of  a  his 
torical  school."  l 

As  a  writer  of  history  Ranke  faithfully  exemplified  the 
principles  which  he  laid  down  at  the  beginning.  One  of 
the  best  statements  of  them  is  that  in  the  English  History  — 
"  All  hangs  together  —  critical  study  of  genuine  sources, 
impartial  view,  objective  description ;  the  end  to  be  arrived 
at  is  the  representation  of  the  whole  truth.  I  am  here  set 
ting  up  an  ideal,  respecting  which  I  shall  be  told  that  it  can 
never  be  realized.  Well,  the  conditions  of  the  case  are 
these:  The  idea  is  immeasurable,  the  realization  of  it  is 
from  its  nature  limited.  Happy  is  he  who  has  entered  upon 
the  right  path  and  attained  the  results  which  can  stand  fur 
ther  investigation  and  criticism."  2 

To  realize,  even  approximately,  this  ideal  requires  the  con 
stant  exercise  of  the  criticism,  precision,  and  penetration, 
which  he  enjoined  upon  his  pupils.  Among  the  many  ex 
amples  of  his  penetration  that  could  be  given,  the  following 
is  perhaps  the  most  remarkable.  One  of  the  most  striking 
results  of  modern  historical  criticism  is  the  demonstration 
that  the  Levitical  Law  as  we  have  it  in  the  Pentateuch  is 
a  late  and  largely  ideal  product  of  Jewish  priestly  thought, 
which  assumed  its  present  shape  during  or  after  the  exile,  or 
perhaps  a  thousand  years  later  than  its  apparent  date.  This 

ischen  Hause,  1837,  reprinted  in  the  Werke,  LII,  479-81 ;  in  the  entry  in  his  diary 
for  April  6,  1884,  649;  in  Von  Sybel's  Gedachtnissrede,  Hist.  Zeits.,  LVI,  474; 
and  in  Waitz's  Die  Hisforischen  Uebungen  zu  Gottingen,  1867,  4,  5.  For  a  fuller 
treatment  of  this  phase  of  Ranke's  work,  see  below  pp.  263-74. 

1  Von  Sybel,  «  Georg  Waitz,"  Hist.  Zeits.,  LVI,  485.     Cf.  also  Waitz,  Die 
historische  Uebungen  zu  Gottingen.    Dr.  Stuckenberg  in  his  article  on  Ranke  in  the 
Andover  Review,  February,  1887,  asserts  that  over  one   hundred  of  Ranke's 
students  gained  distinction. 

2  History  of  England,  V,  428. 


256  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

was  first  put  forward  conjecturally  by  Reuss  in  lectures,  but 
not  published,  in  1833-34 ;  it  was  first  systematically  argued 
by  Graf,  at  one  time  a  pupil  of  Reuss,  in  1866,  and  it  was 
substantially  demonstrated  by  Wellhausen  in  1878.  In 
April,  1828,  Ranke  wrote  his  brother  Henry:  "The  dis 
covery  of  the  unknown  history  of  the  world  would  be  my 
greatest  good  fortune ;  I  believe  also  that  you  can  and  will 
contribute  your  share  to  it.  In  regard  to  the  most  ancient 
phases  of  the  world's  history  —  the  unique  evidence  for 
which  I  believe  the  Bible  is  —  the  most  incredible  confusion 
of  ideas  prevails.  When  were  the  Mosaic  books  written? 
Did  the  constitution  which  they  depict  ever  exist;  if  so, 
when?  Numberless  other  questions  are  not  yet  answered 
satisfactorily."  * 

Ranke  here  put  his  finger  on  the  crucial  point  of  the  whole 
matter  aud  set  the  exact  problem  which  was  to  be  solved 
fifty  years  later.2  It  is  hardly  too  much  to  say  that,  in  all 
probability,  if  Ranke  had  devoted  himself  to  Hebrew  history, 
taking  up  the  questions  he  suggested,  the  work  of  Graf  and 
Wellhausen  would  have  been  done  forty  or  fifty  years  earlier, 
and  that  the  Biblical  discussions  of  our  own  day  would  have 
taken  place  in  the  time  of  our  fathers  and  grandfathers. 

As  a  writer  Ranke  possessed  a  rare  power  of  discerning 
in  his  material  the  typical.  He  draws  in  broad  outline  and 
then  fills  in  with  apt  details.  The  truth  of  the  picture 
vitally  depends  upon  the  discrimination  and  honesty  with 
which  the  choice  of  details  is  made.  Leo  attacked  his 
method  in  1828,  and  Ranke  justified  it  in  the  following 
words,  which  set  forth  his  principles  of  composition:  "I 
have  made  the  attempt  to  represent  the  general  through  the 
particular,  directly  and  without  tedious  multiplicity  of  de 
tail.  In  this  I  have  not  imitated  Johann  von  Miiller  or  any 

1  Pages  195,  196. 

2  Yet,  with  characteristic  singleness  of  aim  and  devotion  to  his  main  purpose, 
Ranke  gave  the  problem  no  further  attention,  as  it  lay  outside  his  field.     Appar 
ently  he  never  even  familiarized  himself  with  its  solution.     The  section  on  the 
History  of  Israel  in  the   Weltgeschichte  might  just  as  well  have  been  written  in 
1825  for  all  the  influence  it  shows  of  modern  Biblical  criticism. 


LEOPOLD   VON  RANKE  257 

of  the  ancients,  but  have  tried  to  approximate  the  phenome 
non  itself  as  something  which  is,  on  the  outside,  merely  a 
particular  thing,  but  in  its  essence  is  something  general  with 
a  meaning  and  a  spirit." l 

Four  great  works  of  Ranke's  stand  out  above  the  others  — 
the  Histories  of  the  Popes,  of  Germany  during  the  Reforma 
tion,  of  France  in  the  Sixteenth  and  Seventeenth  Centuries, 
and  of  England  chiefly  in  the  Seventeenth  Century.  It  is 
by  these  works  mainly  that  he  is  and  will  be  familiar  to 
English  and  American  readers.  In  each  case  those  events 
are  selected  for  treatment  which  are  of  importance  in  the 
development  of  European  civilization.  In  each  case  the 
historian  keeps  the  rest  of  Europe  under  his  comprehensive 
gaze,  and  at  every  step  illustrates  the  current  of  events  from 
the  history  of  the  neighbor  nations  with  unrivalled  knowl 
edge.  It  is  the  history  of  the  world  he  is  writing,  of  that 
European  world  the  very  bone  and  marrow  of  whose  life 
came  from  Rome.  The  introduction  to  his  English  History 
is  one  of  the  finest  examples  of  this  characteristic.  Com 
parison  with  Macaulay's  introductory  chapter  brings  out 
clearly  its  peculiar  quality.  Macaulay's  first  chapter,  like 
his  whole  work,  is,  as  he  said  himself,  insular;  Ranke's  is 
universal.  Both  are  masterpieces,  but  they  are  utterly  un 
like.2 

1  Page  664.     Erwiderung  auf  Heinrich  Leo's  Angriff (1828).     A  penetrating 
and  illuminating  criticism   of   Ranke's    attitude   toward   his   material  will    be 
found  in  the  letters  of  Strauss.     Briefly  summarized  it  is  this:    Herodotus  is 
a  prose  epic,  in  Sallust's  work  are  the  characteristics  of  the  epigram,  in  that 
of  Tacitus  those  of  the  dramatist.     In  Ranke's  work  similarly  there   are   the 
characteristics  of  the  lyric    poet.     "  His  attitude  toward    historical   material  is 
not  like  Homer's,  but,  like  Pindar's,  toward  the  mythical.     It  is  not  his  purpose 
first  to  make  us  acquainted  with    the    subject,  as   is    usually  the    intention  of 
historical  writers,  but  he  assumes  such  an  acquaintance;    he  does  not  himself 
outline  the  historical  picture,  but  adds  to  it,  as  he  presupposes  it  in  the  memory 
of  his  reader,  only  the  last  touches  of   color,   and    often  in  quite  unexpected 
places.      His  style  also  corresponds  to  this :  Short  periods,  which  in  the  soul  and 
imagination  of  the  reader  shall  resound  in  a  long  echo."    Zeller,  Ausc/ewahlte 
Briefe  von  David  Friedrich  Strauss,  Bonn,  1895,  316-317.     Pindar  was  Ranke's 
favorite  poet. 

2  For  brief  criticisms  of  Macaulay  by  Ranke,  see  History  of  England,  I,  xi. 

17 


258  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

This  intellectual  attitude  may  be  traced,  in  part  perhaps, 
to  the  influence  of  Herodotus,  whose  unconfined  survey  of  the 
whole  world  fascinated  Ranke  at  Frankfort.1  "Herodotus 
did  not  hate  the  barbarians,"  he  wrote  in  his  Weltgeschichte  ; 
"  otherwise  how  could  he  depict  them  ?  "  So  Ranke  himself 
wrote  the  history  of  France,  not  as  a  German,  but  as  a  Euro 
pean.  An  orthodox  Protestant,  he  was  suspected  of  a  lean 
ing  toward  Catholicism,  a  conservative  monarchist,  he  held 
the  scales  with  wonderful  evenness  in  the  case  of  Charles  I. 
and  Cromwell.  His  devotion  to  historic  truth,  holding 
everything  subordinate  to  showing  "exactly  how  it  took 
place,"  exposed  him  to  the  charge  of  indifference  to  philo 
sophical  and  religious  interests.  This  he  vigorously  re 
pelled.2  Yet,  after  all,  it  is  true  that  it  was  political  history 
to  which  he  devoted  the  most  of  his  efforts.  Economic 
phenomena  are  treated  episodically  if  at  all,  yet  to  Ranke 
may  be  attributed  a  share  in  the  immense  development  of 
the  study  of  economic  history.  Roscher,  the  pioneer  and 
founder  of  the  historical  school  of  economics,  was  a  student 
of  Ranke's  at  Berlin  in  his  best  period,  and  of  all  his  teachers 
he  attributed  the  greatest  influence  to  Ranke  and  Gervinus. 
Roscher 's  thesis  on  TJie  Historical  Teaching  of  the  Greek 
Sophists,  1838,  and  his  first  book,  entitled,  Leben,  Werk  und 
Zeitalter  des  Thucydides,  testify  to  Ranke's  inspiration.3 

We  have  seen  that  it  was  as  a  teacher  of   teachers  and 

Werke,  LIT,  570.  Ranke  called  on  Macaulay  in  March,  1857.  "I  told  him  I 
admired  the  form  of  his  writings  and  particularly  the  way  he  explained  the  present 
through  the  past,  although  I  did  not  agree  with  him  in  every  point,"  p.  386. 

1  Page  39.     "  Die  unendliche  Weltumfassung,  die  sich  in  diesem  Grundbuch 
des  historischen  Wissens  ausgepragt  hat." 

2  "  It  is  ridiculous  to  hear  that  I  am  deficient  in  philosophical  and  religious 
interests,  since  it  is  exactly  that,  and  that  alone,  which  impelled  me  to  the  study 
of  history."     Letter  to  Ritter,  Augusts,  1830,239.     Alexander  von  Humboldt 
good-humoredly  wrote  of  him  as  "  His  non-puritanical,  hut  antipapistical  Holi 
ness."      Letter  to   Sarah  Austin   in  Janet  Ross,  Three   Generations  of  English 

Women,  I,  197.  These  volumes  contain  several  interesting  glimpses  of  Ranke, 
cf.  I,  172,  and  II,  190. 

3  Wolowski's  sketch  of  Roscher  in  Lalor's  Roscher's  Political  Economy,  I,  30. 
The  original  title  of  the  thesis  is  De  historiccB  doctrince  apud  sophistas  majores 
vestigiis. 


LEOPOLD   VON  RANKE  259 

writers  that  Ranke  exerted  the  greatest  influence  at  the  uni 
versity.  It  is  much  the  same  with  his  books.  They  are 
scholars'  books.  Only  his  History  of  the  Popes  has  been  a 
widely  popular  work.  Four  distinct  translations  of  it  were 
published  in  England  and  America.1  The  History  of  Ger 
many  during  the  Reformation  was  partly  translated,  but  has 
long  been  out  of  print.  Of  the  French  history,  the  first 
volume  was  put  into  English  under  the  title  of  Civil  Wars 
and  Monarchy  in  France,  but  the  enterprise  was  not  con 
tinued.  The  English  edition  is  out  of  print,  and  the  Ameri 
can  edition  has  never  been  wholly  sold.  The  History  of 
England  was  translated  by  Oxford  tutors  through  the  influ 
ence  of  Stubbs,2  but  the  demand  in  twenty  years  has  not 
been  sufficient  to  necessitate  reprinting  the  edition.  The 
Weltgeschichte  had  the  same  experience  as  the  French  his 
tory;  one  volume  only  has  been  translated.  The  translations 
of  the  Ottoman  and  Spanish  Monarchies  and  the  Prussian 
History  have  been  out  of  print  for  years.  The  case  is  differ 
ent,  of  course,  in  Germany,  but  even  there  the  demand  for 
Macaulay's  England  far  surpassed  that  for  Ranke's.3  The 
air  of  Ranke  is  too  rarefied  for  the  mass  of  readers.  They 
need  the  warmth  and  glow  of  national  or  democratic  feeling. 
Ranke  is  still  a  power  in  the  academic  world.  Of  recent 
English  historians,  Stubbs,  Gardiner,  and  Creighton  belong 
distinctively  to  his  school.  Stubbs  stands  beside  Waitz; 
Creighton  takes  Ranke's  old  theme  and  elaborates  it  in 
greater  detail,  and  Gardiner  draws  more  richly  than  the 
master  could  from  Venetian,  Roman,  French,  and  Spanish 
relations,  and  in  his  narrative  faithfully  exemplified  Ranke's 
principles  and  methods.4  Of  American  historians  the  only 

1  The  explanation  of  this  widespread  demand  for  the  History  of  the  Popes  in 
England  is  to  be  found,  no  doubt,  in  the  great  interest  aroused  by  the  Tractarian 
movement  and  the  attendant  discussions. 

2  Stubbs :  Seventeen  Lectures  on  Mediaeval  and  Modern  History,  57. 

3  Wegele,  1054,  says  that  Macaulay's  History  had  "  eine  unendlich  grossere 
Verbreitung  "  than  Ranke's.     This  was  in  large  measure  owing  to  the  fact  that 
it  fell  in  more  with  contemporary  political  feeling. 

4  Since  writing  the  above,  I  find  in  a  review  by  Alfred  Stern  of  Gardiner's 


260  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

one  who  shows  the  influence  of  Ranke  in  a  marked  way  is 
Henry  Adams.1  In  his  work  we  find  the  criticism,  preci 
sion,  and  penetration  in  a  remarkable  degree,  the  character 
istic  and  most  successful  use  of  diplomatic  relations,  the 
same  comprehensive  outlook. 

Ranke  crowned  his  unexampled  labors  2  with  his  History  of 
the  World.  Like  the  aged  Humboldt,3  as  the  end  approached, 
he  felt  the  impulse  to  leave  the  world  a  general  view  of  the 
field  of  his  labors  —  a  sort  of  testament.  The  undertaking 
was  truly  wonderful,  but  not  so  wonderful  as  has  been  sup 
posed.  Ranke  in  his  lectures  had  been  accustomed  to  treat 
long  periods  in  a  general  way,  sometimes  covering  the  whole 
of  mediseval  history,  and  his  seminary  work  was  mainly  in 
that  field.  Occasionally  ancient  history  was  the  subject  of 
his  public  courses.  Given,  then,  the  preservation  of  his 
powers,  the  rapidity  with  which  he  turned  off  the  volumes 
seems  less  miraculous.  The  labor  was  largely  that  of  sift 
ing  and  arranging  accumulated  material  and  of  composition. 
This  is  clearly  true  of  the  volume  on  ancient  history.  In  it 
were  utilized  the  results  of  his  Frankfort  studies.4  The 
highly  interesting  chapters  on  literature  are  in  substance  the 
Frankfort  lectures  on  classical  literature.  The  critics  have 
remarked  the  freshness  of  delineation  without  explaining  it. 
The  chapters  on  Israel  come  from  one  whose  critical  study 

History  of  the  Commonwealth,  the  remark  that  Gardiner  is  following  "  den  Spuren 
Ranke'scher  Objectivitat,"  Hist.  Zeits.,  LXXVI,  335. 

1  It  may  occur  to  some  that  George  Bancroft  should  be  mentioned  as  a  fol 
lower  of  Ranke's  methods.     This  is  of  course  true  as  regards  the  extensive  use 
of  diplomatic  material.     In  other  respects  Bancroft  shows  more  distinctly  the 

•influence  of  Heeren,  under  whom  he  studied,  and  some  of  whose  works  he  trans 
lated.  The  style  of  his  early  work  similarly  betrays  the  influence  of  Gibbon. 

2  The  international  character  and  cosmopolitan  significance  of  "Rarike's  work 
is  impressively  shown  in  the  valuable  Bibliography  prepared  by  William  Price 
and  published  in  the  Report  of  the  American  Historical  Association,  1896. 

3  Alexander  von  Humboldt  wrote  most  of  his  Cosmos  after  he  was  seventy- 
five. 

4  Ranke  wrote  Alfred  von  Reumont,  April  15,  1879,  when  he  was  at  work  on 
the  earlier  part  of  the  W eltgeschichte :  "Ich  benutze  Biicher,  die  ich  mir  noch  in 
der  Schulpforte  angeschafft  und  kleine  Arbeiten,  die  ich  in  Frankfort  a.  O.  ent- 
worfen  habe,  so  dass  Alter  und  Jugend  unmittelbar  zusammengehen,"  546. 


LEOPOLD   VON  RANKE  261 

stopped  with  De  Wette.1  The  narrative  of  the  Persian  wars 
faithfully  follows  Herodotus  and  the  older  tradition.  In  his 
old  age  Ranke  had  little  sympathy  with  skeptical  criticism.2 
Enough  has  been  said  to  suggest  the  relation  of  this  work 
to  Ranke's  life.  The  veteran  lives  over  again  his  youth.  His 
legacy  to  the  world  is  to  be  a  view  of  the  world's  history;  a 
fusing  of  the  results  of  youthful  labors  and  youthful  think 
ing  with  the  calm  reflection  of  age;  in  brief,  such  fruits  of 
his  life  work  of  whatever  period  as  were  not  already  before 
the  public.  His  life  was  spared  until  he  brought  his  heroic 
work  nearly  to  the  age  where  sixty-four  years  earlier  his 
youthful  spirit  tarried  in  its  course  to  depict  the  entrance 
upon  the  stage  of  the  great  bearers  of  modern  European  cul 
ture.  He  died  at  the  age  of  ninety,  having  devoted  over 
sixty  years  of  unremitting  effort  to  the  interpretation  of 
human  life  from  the  beginning  of  recorded  history  down  to 
his  own  age. 

1  Ranke  studied  De  Wette  on  the  Old  Testament  in  1825,  150.     Ranke  does 
cite  a  modern  critic,  once  —  Dillman  on  Genesis  —  but  still  he  adheres  to  a 
thoroughly  conservative  opinion. 

2  Guglia,  379. 


RANKE    AND    THE   BEGINNING   OF   THE 

SEMINARY  METHOD  IN  TEACHING 

HISTORY 


RANKE  AND  THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  SEMINARY 
METHOD  IN  TEACHING  HISTORY 

THE  development  and  wide  adoption  of  the  seminary 
method  in  teaching  history  during  the  last  two  generations, 
and  its  great  significance  in  the  promotion  of  historical  in 
vestigation,  lend  unusual  interest  to  the  question  of  its 
origin.  It  is  well  known  that  Ranke,  the  centennial  of 
whose  birth  was  reverently  celebrated  last  winter1  in  Ger 
many,  was  the  first  great  historical  teacher2  to  develop  and 
establish  this  method,  but  where  he  got  the  suggestion  and 

1  In  December,  1895. 

2  Gatterer,  at  Gottingen,  in  1764,  founded  an  Institutum  Historicum,  which 
has  been  regarded  as  a  kind  of  Historical  seminary  (cf.  Wegele,   Geschichte  der 
deutschen  Historiographie,  761),  but  with  doubtful  propriety.     In  any  case  I  find 
no  evidence  t>f  its  having  suggested  anything  to  Ranke.     Heyne,  in  his  address 
at  the  official  recognition  of  the  Institute,  calls  it  "  societas  cum  virorum  docto- 
rum  et  historicis  studiis  florentium,  turn  juvenum  ad  accuratioris  doctrinae  laudem 
adspirantium,"  etc.     In  other  words,  Gatterer's  Institute  was  the  familiar  His 
torical  Society  made  up  of  mature  scholars  and  of  students  united  to  promote 
original  research  and  a  more  comprehensive  knowledge  of  history.     Gatterer's 
Allgemeine  Historische  Bibliothek  was  the  organ  of  the  society  (cf.  Chr.  G.  Heynii, 
Opuscula  Academica,  I,  286).      Wilken,  also,  the  historian  of  the  Crusades,  con 
ducted  a  seminary  at  Berlin  before  and  during  Ranke's  time,  but  his  work  was 
not  epoch-making.     Wilken  is  not  mentioned  in  Ranke's  letters.      Waitz  in  his 
Gluckwunschschreiben  an  Leopold  von  Ranke  zum  Tage  der  Feier  seines funfzic/jahrigen 
Doctor jubelaums,  February  20, 1867,  p.  5,  says  :  "  Historische  Uebungen  sind  wohl 
schon  lange  einzeln  an  unsern  Universitaten  veranstaltet  worden.    Ich  habe  auch 
die  des  alten  Wilken  besucht,  und  ich  ware  undankbar,  wenn  ich  nicht  der  man- 
cherlei  Belehrung,  die  ich  hier  empfangen,  gedachte.     Aber  ich  glaube  nicht 
zu  viel  zu  sagen,  wenn  ich  ausspreche,  dass,  wie  das  Studium  der  Geschichte  uber- 
haupt,  so  insonderheit  das  akademische  Studium  durch  Sie  ganz  neue  Impulse 
erhalten  hat."     Giesebrecht,  in  his   Geddchtnissrede,   11,  says:  "  Er  selbst   hat 
nicht  von  einem  Seminar  gesprochen,  aber  seine  Uebungen  sind  das  Seminarium 
geworden  f iir  alle  jene  Semiuare,  die  wir  jetzt  an  unseren  Universitaten  besitzen." 


266  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

the  system  he  followed  have  not,  so  far  as  I  know,  been  set 
before  English  readers  in  any  detail.1 

In  its  earlier  use  the  name  Seminary  was  applied  to  courses 
designed  for  the  training  of  teachers  rather  than  to  a  method 
of  giving  instruction  to  advanced  students.  Down  to  the 
latter  part  of  the  last  century  in  Germany  the  teachers  at 
the  Gymnasia,  like  American  college  professors  for  nearly  a 
century  later,  were  either  clergymen  or  men  who  had  re 
ceived  a  theological  education.  As  the  need  for  trained 
teachers  began  to  be  more  keenly  felt,  philological  semina 
ries  were  established  at  the  universities  to  train  young  men 
to  be  teachers  of  the  classics.  Of  these  early  philological 
seminaries  the  most  famous  was  that  founded  at  Halle  in 
1787  by  the  great  Homeric  critic,  Wolf.2 

Three  years  earlier  than  this,  however,  we  find  at  Leipzig 
an  organization  which  is  the  prototype  of  the  modern  semi 
nary,  although  it  did  not  assume  the  name.  This  primitive 
seminary  was  founded  by  C.  D.  Beck  for  the  purpose  of 
training  its  members  to  do  independent  work.  It  was  known 
as  the  Societas  Philologica,  and  met  twice  weekly  during  the 
remainder  of  Beck's  life  at  Leipzig.  The  method  of  proced 
ure  was  as  follows:  A  member  selected  a  passage  from  a 
classical  author  for  discussion  and  announced  it  to  the  others 
a  few  days  beforehand.  At  the  meeting  he  commented  on  its 
critical,  grammatical,  and  historical  aspects,  and  then  lis 
tened  to  the  criticisms  of  his  associates.3 

In  1799  Gottfried  Hermann,  who  had  taken  his  degree  at 
Leipzig  in  1790  and  thus  after  Beck's  Club  was  started, 
formed  his  famous  Societas  Graeca,  which  existed  till  1840 

1  In  the  excellent  sketch  of  Ranke,  written  by  the  late  Prof.  J.  L.  Lincoln,  of 
Brown  University,  and  first  published  in  In  Memoriam  John  Larkin  Lincoln, 
1894,  will  be  found  Von  Sybel's  account  of  Ranke 's  method  of  work  with  his 
Seminary,  578. 

2  See  Mark  Pattison's  Essay  on  Wolf  for  a  description  of  Wolf's  Seminary. 
North  British  Review,  XLII,  266-268,  or  his  collected  Essays,  I,  362-3,  367-9. 

8  On  pp.  5-13  of  Commentarii  Soc.  Philolog.  Lipsiensis  edi  curavit  Christian 
Daniel  Beckius,  I,  Lipsiae,  1801,  will  be  found  the  "  Historia,  consilia,  et  instituta 
philologicse  societatis  eiusque  exercitationum."  Volumes  of  the  Proceedings 
were  published  at  different  times. 


RANKERS  SEMINARY  METHOD  267 

and  numbered  among  its  189  active  members  many  of  the 
most  distinguished  scholars  of  the  century.  This  Greek  Club 
was  conducted  in  the  following  manner:  A  student  prepared 
a  critical  paper  on  some  subject  and  handed  it  in  to  Her 
mann,  who  read  it  and  marked  with  a  pencil  its  weak 
points.  At  the  meeting  of  the  club  he  passed  the  marked 
,  essay  to  a  member  called  the  opponent,  who  immediately 
1  opened  a  fire  of  criticism  on  the  work.  The  writer  defended 
himself  as  best  he  could,  and  when  the  discussion  was  closed 
Hermann  reviewed  the  questions  on  their  merits.  These 
exercises  were  very  stimulating  and  contributed  in  no  small 
degree  to  Hermann's  great  success  as  a  teacher.1 

Of  these  two  famous  pioneer  seminaries  Ranke  was  a  mem 
ber  during  his  student  days  at  Leipzig,  1814-18. 2  At  that 
time  he  had  no  special  interest  in  history,  but  was  deeply 
absorbed  in  classical  literature.  In  his  autobiographical 
sketches  he  characterizes  Beck  and  Hermann  as  the  most 
active  and  effective  of  his  teachers,  and  refers  to  the  training 
for  teaching  he  had  received  in  Beck's  seminary.3  From 
1818  to  1824  Ranke  was  a  teacher  of  Greek  and  Latin  and 
the  history  of  classical  literature  in  the  Gymnasium  at  Frank 
fort  a.  O.  In  1824  he  was  made'  an  assistant  professor  of 
history  at  Berlin,  and  there  he  began  his  first  systematic  in 
struction  in  that  subject  in  the  spring  of  1825  with  a  course 
on  the  History  of  Western  Europe,  including  the  history 
of  literature  and  of  the  Church.4 

Among  Ranke's  intimate  friends  at  this  time  was  Karl  v. 
Raumer,  professor  of  mineralogy  at  Erlangen.  Raumer  was 
at  all  times  deeply  interested  in  improving  methods  of  teach- 

1  See  Koechly's  Gottfried  Hermann,  Heidelberg,  1874,  79-81  and  240-244,  for 
vivid  descriptions  of  these  exercises.     On  pp.  257-259  will  be  found  a  list  of  the 
members  during  the  life  of  the  club. 

2  Ranke,  Zur  Eigenen  Lebensgeschichte,  34,  and  Koechly,  ibid.,  257.    Ranke,  in 
the  place  just  cited,  refers  to  Beck's  seminary  as  the  "  philologisch-padagogische 
Seminar  "  at  Leipzig,  which  would  indicate  that  pedagogical  objects  received 
some  attention.     His  other  reference  to  Beck's  seminary  is  on  p.  60,  where  it  is 
called  simply  "  Philologische." 

8  Zur  Eigenen  Lebensgeschichte ,  34,  60. 
4  Ibid.,  145. 


268  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

ing  and  to  this  day  is  best  known  for  his  pedagogical  writ 
ings.  He  began  his  career  as  a  teacher  of  natural  science  at 
Breslau  in  1810.  He  was  disgusted  at  being  expected  to 
teach  mineralogy  without  minerals,  as  was  then  the  not 
uncommon  practice.1  At  Halle  in  1819  he  had  the  use  of 
a  fair  working  collection.  His  instincts  as  a  teacher  led  him 
toward  practical  work  and  personal  contact  with  the  stu 
dents.2  Soon  after  Ranke  went  to  Berlin,  Raumer  advised 
his  friend  to  offer  practice  courses  in  history.3  The  sugges 
tion  struck  Ranke  favorably  and  he  wrote  back,  July  12, 
1825,  "  I  have  just  profited  by  your  advice  and  announced 
a  practice  course  in  history  (Jiistorische  Uebungen)  for  the 
next  term.  I  very  much  wish  to  stand  in  a  vital  relation  to 
my  students,  although,  to  be  sure,  I  am  not  quite  the  man 
to  be  equal  to  the  noble  position  of  a  true  teacher."4  The 
Index  Lectionum  for  that  year  contains  the  simple  announce 
ment  without  further  explanation: 

"L.  Ranke,  Dr. 

I.  Publice  exercitationes  historicas  moderabitur  semel  p. 
hebd."5 

That  Ranke  carried  out  his  design  appears  from  his  assertion 
in  1837  that  he  had  conducted  practice  courses  since  the 
beginning  of  his  university  activity.6 

1  Raumer,  Geschickte  der  Pddagogik,  IV,  95.    This  fourth  volume  is  a  sketch 
of  the  history  of  the  German  universities  followed  by  an  autobiographical  account 
of  the  author's  experiences  as  a  student  and  professor.      An  English  translation 
will  be  found  in  Barnard's  American  Journal  of  Education,  VI,  VII.    The  passage 
mentioned  in  the  text  may  be  found  in  Barnard  VII,  77. 

2  Compare  his  essay,  Katheder-Vortrag ;    Dialog.,  ibid.,   205-211;   Barnard, 
Am.  Jour,  of  Education,  VII,  201-206. 

3  Possibly  Raumer's  experience  as  a  pupil  of  Hugo  may  have  contributed  to 
this  suggestion.    Hugo's  lectures  on  law  at  Gottingen  were  attended  with  "  Ausar- 
beitung  juristischer  Anfgaben  "  (Raumer,  ibid.,  73). 

4  Ranke,  ibid.,  148. 

8  See  Travels  in  the  North  of  Germany  in  the  Years  1825  and  1826.  By  Henry 
E.  Dwight,  A.  M.  N.  Y.  1829,  448. 

6  Werke,  LII,  479.  Dove,  in  his  "  Life  of  Ranke,"  in  the  Allgemeine  deutsche 
Biographic,  says  that  the  dominant  factor  of  Ranke's  teaching  was  his  practice 
courses  as  established  in  a  new  form,  first  in  1833.  Ranke  nowhere  gives  any 


RANKED S  SEMINARY  METHOD  269 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  the  seminary  method  of  instruction 
in  history  was  an  adaptation  by  Ranke  of  a  method  already 
well  tried  in  classical  philology  at  the  suggestion  of  a  teacher 
of  science  who  keenly  realized  the  value  of  practical  work. 
Ranke 's  own  experiences  in  the  classical  seminaries  of  Her 
mann  and  Beck,  and  his  instincts  as  a  teacher,  disposed  him 
favorably  to  Raumer's  suggestion.1 

His  'own  ideas  of  the  function  of  the  seminary  are  expressed 
in  the  preface  to  the  first  published  work  of  his  students, 
Jahrbiloher  des  deutschen  Reiches  unter  dem  Saehsischen 
Hause  (1837).  "On  the  subjective  and  personal  side  this 
undertaking  began  in  the  following  way.  A  university  pro 
fessor  very  soon  perceives  that  he  has  two  classes  of  stu 
dents,  those  who  want  to  be  well  grounded  in  science  either 
through  their  desire  for  general  culture  or  on  account  of  their 
future  careers,  and  others  who  feel  within  themselves  the 
impulse  and  call  to  take  active  part  in  the  advancement  of 
science.  The  lectures,  I  believe,  may  be  suitably  directed 

hint  of  a  change  of  method,  and  evidently  regarded  1825  as  the  beginning  of  his 
seminary  (see  below,  p.  270).  His  work  in  Berlin  was  suspended  from  1827  to 
the  spring  of  1831  by  his  Italian  journey.  Giesebrecht  distinctly  implies  that  the 
seminary  was  formed  in  the  latter  year,  or  early  in  1832  (Gedachtnissrede,  11). 
Apparently  the  earliest  of  his  pupils  to  gain  distinction  was  Waitz,  who  joined 
his  seminary  in  1833. 

1  Professor  Lincoln  writes:  "These  exercises,  as  he  called  them,  and  which 
he  instituted  in  imitation  of  Beck's  Philological  Seminary,  of  which  he  was  a 
member  in  Leipzig,  proved  to  be  the  seminary  of  all  historical  seminaries  which 
have  since  been  established  in  the  German  universities  with  such  signal  educa 
tional  results/'  — In  Memoriam  John  Larkin  Lincoln,  577.  The  latter  part  of  his 
sentence  is  from  Giesebrecht ;  the  former  part  is  the  only  assertion  of  the  kind  I 
have  met  with  in  reading  a  considerable  body  of  Ranke  literature.  Possibly 
Professor  Lincoln  got  it  from  Ranke  himself,  whom  he  knew  as  a  student,  and 
later.  Ranke  may  have  been  influenced,  too,  by  Boechk's  Philological  Seminary, 
founded  at  Berlin  in  1812.  In  1835  he  was  a  member  of  the  Griechische  Gesell- 
schaft,  conducted  by  Bekker.  Both  Boechk  and  Bekker  were  students  of  Wolf's. 
The  announcement  of  Boechk's  seminary  reads : 

"  In  seminario  philologico  Euripidis  Iphigeniam  in  Aulide  sodalibus  inter- 
pretandam  proponet  Boechk  dieb.  Merc,  et  Saturni  hor.  X-XI.  Ceterisque 
Seminarii  exercitationibus  more  solito  prseerit."  In  the  theological  seminary, 
Marheinecke  and  Neander  announced  exercitationes  in  church  history.  Dwight's 
Travels,  450. 


270  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

to  both.  It  is  certainly  useful  for  the  former  to  get  some 
idea  of  the  tools  of  the  scholar  and  of  original  investigation, 
while  the  latter  class  must  needs  get  a  bird's-eye  view  of  the 
whole  field  of  their  work,  so  that  later  they  may  not  lose 
their  bearings  in  the  details  of  special  investigation.  Both 
must  follow  the  lectures  with  attention,  whether  they  are 
devoted  to  the  logical  development  of  the  meaning  of  his 
tory  or  to  the  presentation  of  connected  facts.  Yet  the  lec 
tures  are  not  enough.  Especially  for  the  latter  and  much 
less  numerous  class  is  a  closer  introduction  to  the  real  work 
of  the  scholar,  to  personal  activity,  desirable.  This  need  for 
many  years  has  been  met  sometimes  in  the  seminaries  under 
public  authority,  and  sometimes  by  personal  encouragement 
in  voluntary  practice  courses. 

"  Since  the  beginning  of  my  university  teaching  it  has  been 
a  pleasure  to  me  to  conduct  historical  practice  courses  (his- 
torische  Uebungeri).  More  than  once  I  have  had  the  good 
fortune  to  see  young  men  of  ability  and  zeal  take  part  in 
them.1  Gradually  works  were  produced  which  were  not 
without  Scholarly  significance;  they  threw  light  on  difficult 
points  in  a  new  way,  and,  as  they  were  additions  to  our 
knowledge,  were  not  unworthy  of  being  presented  to  the 
attention  of  the  learned  public.  Yet  I  could  not  bring 
myself  to  encourage  the  publication  of  disconnected  essays. 
The  ambition  which  is  inseparably  connected  with  one's 
first  publication,  with  one's  entrance  into  the  literary  world, 
should  be  fixed  upon  a  worthy  and  important  subject.  It 
also  seemed  to  me  more  advisable  to  promote  the  joint  pro 
duction  of  a  more  considerable  work  which  should  contribute 
something  essential,  as  we  Germans  say,  and  perhaps  fill  a 
gap,  rather  than  merely  to  put  forth  a  specimen  of  our  activ 
ity,  in  which  the  world  could  have  little  interest.  In  1834, 
upon  my  suggestion,  the  Philosophical  Faculty  of  the  Uni 
versity  of  Berlin  offered  a  prize  for  the  best  essay  on  the  life 
and  work  of  King  Henry  I.  Several  members  of  our  club 

1  These  sentences,  written  in  1837,  clearly  indicate  that  Ranke's  seminary  was 
then  more  than  four  years  old. 


RANKED  SEMINARY  METHOD  271 

competed  for  it  and  the  prize  was  awarded  to  one  of  them.1 
Among  the  other  essays  were  several  of  merit  and  one  re 
ceived  a  second  prize.  As  a  whole,  these  essays  surpassed 
my  expectations."  Ranke  then  goes  on  to  say  that  he  sug 
gested  to  the  more  advanced  members  of  the  seminary  that 
instead  of  longer  scattering  their  efforts  they  should  concen 
trate  them  on  the  investigation  of  the  Saxon  period.  They 
did  so,  and  the  result  was  the  Jahrbilcher  des  deutschen 
Seiches  unter  dem  Sachsischen  Hause.  The  essays  were  care 
fully  criticised  by  the  members  of  the  seminary.  Ranke  con 
cludes  :  "  I  scarcely  need  give  the  assurance  that  these  works 
are  independent  productions,  for  they  show  it  themselves.  I 
do  not  subscribe  to  all  the  assertions  or  judgments  expressed 
in  them,  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  would  I  assume  for  myself 
the  praise  which  the  authors  may  have  deserved.  Every 
teacher  knows  that  the  best  that  he  can  do  consists  in  his 
indirect  influence,  under  which,  fortunate  natural  abilities 
and  peculiar  scientific  aptitudes  receive  the  freest  scope  for 
their  exercise."2 

Among  the  fragments  printed  with  Ranke 's  memoirs  and 
letters  is  the  following  reminiscence,  after  fifty  years,  of  this 
early  seminary :  "  I  recall  in  the  presence  of  the  once  young 
but  now  gray -haired  members  who  took  part  in  the  historische 
Uebungen  the  studies  in  German  history  then  begun.  I 
have  just  looked  through  a  long  series  of  Jahrbiicher  des 
deutschen  Reiches,  but  a  still  broader  survey  is  afforded  by 
the  historico-diplomatic  studies  conducted  in  all  the  other 
fields.  What  we  then  began  modestly,  the  seed  which  we 
then  planted,  is  grown  to  a  great  tree  in  whose  branches  the 
birds  of  the  air  lodge.  I  connected  my  historical  seminary 
(Uebungen)' with  the  earlier  studies  which  I  had  prosecuted 
in  Frankfort.  The  old  collections  of  various  kinds,  with 
their  imperfect  texts,  I  had  already  begun  to  read.  My 
memory  goes  back  even  further  to  Stenzel,  who  was  tutor  in 

1  Georg  Waitz.    The  prize  essay  was  worked  over  into  his  published  work  on 
King  Henry  I. 

2  Werke,  LII,  479-481. 


272  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

the  family  of  a  preacher  at  the  Nicolai  Church  in  Leipzig, 
but  also  a  trained  historian  by  profession.  It  was  at  his 
rooms  that  I  first  saw  a  collection  of  Scriptores,  and  I  began 
to  read  some  of  them  under  his  direction.  This  I  continued 
in  Frankfort,  where  I  attempted  an  essay  on  the  old  Em 
perors  in  connection  with  my  teaching.  The  first  volumes 
of  Pertz  appeared  later,  but  they  reached  only  to  the  Caro- 
lingian  period  and  not  actually  into  the  history  of  the  Ger 
mans.  We  therefore  had  to  resort  again  to  the  old  editions. 
"  I  am  still  surprised  at  the  ability  and  application  of  those 
young  students  who  gathered  about  me.  There  were :  Giese- 
brecht,  who  called  on  me  to-day;  Kopke,  Wilmanns,  and 
Waitz,  to  whom  I  then  said  —  such  was  the  impression  he 
made  on  me  —  that  he  was  destined  to  be  the  Muratori  of 
German  history.  Giesebrecht  had  a  poetic  temperament,  he 
already  was  a  skilful  writer;  Kopke,  ingenious,  with  the 
gifts  of  a  scholar;  Donniges,  enterprising,  full  of  practical 
ideas.  In  this  circle  the  work  went  on.  We  came  to  the 
Chronicon  Corbejense,  whose  spuriousness  I  recognized  at 
first  without  being  able  to  prove  it.  The  members  of  the 
club  made  the  investigation  which  was  to  prove  it  not  genu 
ine.  Waitz  at  that  time  was  not  with  us.  He  had  gone  to 
Copenhagen,  and  when  he  returned  he  was  reluctant  to  adopt 
our  thesis,  but  soon  he  convinced  himself.  With  Hirsch, 
one  of  our  most  industrious  members,  he  prepared  the  essay 
which  convinced  us  all.  Hirsch  was  the  youngest  of  the 
group,  very  well  trained  and  zealous.  Then  we  united  to 
prepare  the  Annals  of  the  Saxon  House.  What  prompted  me 
to  this  was  the  example  of  Raumer's  Hohenstauffen  and  Sten- 
zel's  Salian  Emperors.1  The  blessing  of  heaven  guided  these 
beginnings.  The  men  have  made  their  way  in  the  world,  but 
the  old  ties  of  friendship  still  hold  the  survivors  together, 
and  to  me  it  is  a  kind  of  family  alliance  in  literature."2 

1  Ranke  also  notes  that  residence  in  childhood  and  youthful  travels  in  Saxony 
had  early  kindled  an  interest  in  the  country. 

2  Zur  Eigenen  Lebensgeschichte,  649-650.      Memorandum  entitled  Die  Alien 
Schiller,  April  6,  1884.     Other  particulars  about  the  preparation  of  the  Jahrbucher 
may  be  found  in  Ranke's  letters  toWaitz  during  this  period. 


RANKERS  SEMINARY  METHOD  273 

Of  Ranke's  method  in  conducting  the  seminary,  Von 
Sybel  has  given  a  brief  sketch  in  his  memorial  address :  "  For 
training  those  who  wished  to  make  a  profession  of  writing 
history,  he  instituted  special  historical  practice  courses,  in 
which,  under  his  sure  guidance,  the  pupil,  without  much 
theorizing,  learned  critical  method  through  his  own  efforts. 
Ranke  allowed  him  free  choice  of  his  subject,  but  was  always 
ready  from  his  inexhaustible  store  of  knowledge  to  propose 
instructive  problems.  Errors  arising  from  neglect  of  critical 
principles  were  judged  unmercifully,  yet  in  a  friendly  man 
ner.  For  the  rest,  he  suffered  each  mind  to  follow  its  own 
bent,  mindful  of  that  supreme  rule  of  teaching  that  the  work 
of  the  school  is  not  the  formation,  but  the  development  of  the 
native  powers."  l 

A  more  complete  description  of  this  nursery  of  historians 
is  given  by  the  greatest  teacher  and  scholar  among  all  of 
Ranke 's  pupils,  Georg  Waitz,  and  with  this  our  sketch  of 
the  history  of  Ranke 's  seminary  may  fitly  close. 

"It  was  never  your  wish  that  the  young  friends  who 
attached  themselves  to  you  should  all  follow  in  your  foot 
steps,  or  that  a  definite  series  of  works  should  be  divested  of 
individual  characteristics ;  least  of  all  did  you  desire  to  form 
a  school  in  the  sense  of  requiring  conformity  to  definite  views 
and  ways  of  looking  at  things,  either  as  regards  the  form  of 
presentation  or  the  general  conception  of  the  subject.  On 
the  contrary,  the  greatest  freedom  in  the  selection  of  prob 
lems  and  in  the  methods  of  treatment  was  taken  for  granted. 
You  were  not  sorry  to  see  the  different  personalities  around 
you  each  developing  his  particular  inclinations  and  capabili 
ties.  You  allowed  yourself  to  be  drawn  by  us  to  subjects 
hitherto  strange  to  you,  but  which  your  comprehensive  mind 
soon  mastered.  What  a  variety  of  subjects  from  ancient, 
medieval,  and  modern  history  was  discussed  during  the 
years  while  I  was  a  member  of  the  seminary!  You  were 
not  quite  satisfied  once  that  the  majority  of  the  members 
preferred  other  fields  to  modern  history  —  I  suppose  because 

1  "  Gedachtnissrede  auf  Leopold  v.  Ranke,"  Hint.  Zeitschrift,  56,  474. 

18 


274  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

in  this  field  the  difficulties  of  the  management  of  materials 
are  so  much  greater  —  but  you  always  acceded,  showed  rec 
ognition  and  encouragement  for  every  effort,  gave  opportun 
ity  to  the  peculiar  ability  of  each,  and  knew  how  to  moderate 
and  to  reconcile  differences  when  they  came  into  sharp  con 
flict.  And  with  whatever  active  sympathy  did  you  follow 
the  later  work  of  the  members,  no  matter  what  direction  it 
took,  or  whether  they  adhered  to  or  diverged  from  your 
treatment  of  the  subject. 

"To  every  view  you  gave  freedom;  even  pretty  strong 
antagonisms  in  politics  and  religion,  which  so  often  are  in 
volved  in  the  problems  of  the  historians,  you  removed,  and 
never  let  them  disturb  the  relations  of  the  old  association. 
Scientific  earnestness  and  honesty  of  conviction  alone  were 
important  for  you.  So  to-day  men  of  the  most  divergent 
positions  and  opinions,  who  once  sat  at  your  feet,  gather 
around  you  and  all  confess  that  from  you  more  than  from 
any  one  else  they  received  stimulus  and  teaching.  With  the 
historians  gather  also  many  who  have  achieved  distinction 
in  other  fields,  teachers  of  political  science  and  philosophy, 
practical  statesmen  and  journalists."1 

1  Gluckwunschschreiben,  4,  5.  Waitz,  on  pp.  5-7,  describes  the  methods  he  fol 
lowed  in  his  own  seminary  at  Gottingen. 


FRANCIS  PARKMAN 


FRANCIS  PARKMAN1 

IN  no  branch  of  literature  during  the  century  just  past 
have  American  writers  secured  such  widely  recognized  dis 
tinction  as  in  history.  The  confluence,  early  in  the  century, 
of  two  strong  currents  of  intellectual  activity,  the  critical 
spirit  and  method  of  Wolf  and  Niebuhr,  and  the  sympathetic 
contemplation  of  the  past,  its  monuments  and  life,  inspired 
by  the  genius  of  Chateaubriand  and  Scott,  gave  a  powerful 
impetus  to  historical  research  and  invested  with  a  romantic 
charm  times  and  peoples  which  to  the  eighteenth  centuiy 
seemed  equally  devoid  of  interest  and  of  instruction.  In 
consequence  of  the  discovery  of  new  sources  and  the  more 
penetrating  and  fruitful  study  of  the  old,  the  mass  of  exist 
ing  historical  literature  rapidly  "became  antiquated,  and  the 
whole  field  of  history  stood  ready  for  fresh  exploration. 
The  spirit  and  method  of  the  new  scholarship  were  soon 
communicated  to  the  United  States  by  such  men  as  Tick- 
nor,  Everett,  Bancroft,  and  others  who  returned  from  study 
at  Gottingen,  and  the  new  historical  movement  in  Europe 
was  hardly  in  full  swing,  in  the  second  decade  of  the  cen 
tury,  before  the  younger  generation  of  literary  men  in  this 
country  fell  into  line  and  one  after  another  offered  to  the 
world  historical  narratives  that  without  misgiving  could  be 
ranked  with  the  work  of  Ranke,  Raumer,  Thierry,  or  Guizot. 
The  achievements  of  Irving,  Prescott,  Ticknor,  Bancroft  and 
Motley  cannot  but  seem  surprising  if  one  compares  our  con 
temporary  barrenness  in  the  allied  fields  of  philosophy  and 
economics. 

1  Written  as  an  introduction  to  The  California  and  Oregon  Trail.  T,  Y. 
Crowell  &  Co.  New  York,  1901. 


278  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

The  opportunity  was,  in  fact,  unique.  The  complete  reno 
vation  in  historical  studies  forced  European  scholars  to  begin 
again  at  the  beginning  and  Americans  could  enter  the  com 
petition  on  an  equality  with  them.  The  publication,  for 
example,  of  Navarrete's  documents  made  Robertson  obsolete 
and  opened  the  way  for  Irving  to  write  his  Columbus  with 
out  fearing  the  advent  of  any  rival  with  superior  resources. 
Fresh  from  his  studies  in  Gb'ttingen  and  from  contact  with 
the  best  minds  in  England  and  France,  Ticknor  could  with 
equal  confidence  rear  the  solid  fabric  of  his  History  of  Span 
ish  Literature.  In  like  manner,  Bancroft,  trained  in  history 
and  philosophy  in  the  best  German  universities,  brought  a 
greater  breadth  of  knowledge  to  bear  upon  the  story  of  the 
English  Colonies  than  had  before  been  bestowed  on  such  a 
theme  by  an  English  writer.  Prescott,  too,  fortunate  in  his 
wealth,  enlisted  in  his  service  to  collect  material  several  of 
the  most  accomplished  scholars  in  Europe,  and  wove  their 
contributions  to  his  store  into  a  narrative  which  for  literary 
charm  none  of  them  could  equal.  Then,  following  his  Span 
iards  to  the  New  World,  in  the  collision  of  European  civiliza 
tion  with  the  ancient  culture  of  Mexico  and  Peru  he  laid 
hold  of  two  of  the  most  dramatic  incidents  in  all  history. 
In  the  meantime  the  long  panorama  of  the  life  in  the  north 
ern  forests,  of  the  clash  of  French  and  English,  of  fur  trader 
and  settler,  and  of  both  with  the  Indian,  had  been  unfolded 
by  Cooper  in  a  series  of  romances  that  carried  his  name  and 
familiarized  his  theme  throughout  the  civilized  world. 

These  examples  naturally  turned  the  minds  of  young  men 
of  literary  ambitions  toward  history.  Such  was  the  effect  on 
Motley  and  Parkman,  the  most  distinguished  successors  of 
Irving  and  Prescott.  Motley  was  drawn  by  Prescott's  suc 
cess  into  the  European  field  and  chose  for  his  life  work  the 
history  of  the  struggle  of  the  Dutch  against  Spanish  rule. 
Parkman,  on  the  other  hand,  under  the  spell  of  Cooper,  and 
hardly  less  fascinated  by  Thierry's  portrayal  of  the  move 
ments  of  contending  races  in  his  Norman  Conquest,  found,  in 
undertaking  a  companion  picture  to  Prescott's  Conquest  of 


FRANCIS  PARKMAN  279 

Mexico  and  Conquest  of  Peru,  the  opportunity  to  reconcile 
indulgence  in  his  profound  love  of  wild  nature  with  the  most 
conscientious  effort  to  give  an  adequate  historical  setting  to 
the  drama  of  the  forest,  with  which  the  novelist  had  delighted 
both  hemispheres. 

For  the  details  of  Parkman's  life  the  reader  must  be  re 
ferred  to  the  recent  biography  by  a  friend  of  his  later  years, 
Mr.  Charles  H.  Farnham,  which  contains  his  autobiography 
and  considerable  extracts  from  his  diaries  and  letters  and 
from  such  of  his  minor  writings  as  throw  light  on  his  life 
and  opinions ;  to  the  admirable  Memoir  of  his  college  class 
mate  and  lifelong  friend  Mr.  Edward  Wheelwright,  in  the 
first  volume  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Colonial  Society  of  Mas 
sachusetts  ;  and  for  a  revelation  of  his  character  to  Parkman's. 
novel,  Vassal  Morton. 

He  was  born  in  Boston  of  parents  of  New  England  ances 
try,  September  16,  1823.  His  father,  the  Rev.  Francis 
Parkman,  was  for  many  years  a  prominent  Unitarian  clergy 
man.  The  boyhood  of  the  historian  revealed  the  dominant 
tastes  of  his  later  life.  He  was  studious  at  school  and  espe 
cially  interested  in  poetry  and  in  acquiring  a  varied  command 
over  his  mother  tongue,  but  his  vacations  he  devoted  to  the 
woods  and  to  woodland  sports.  As  early  as  his  sophomore 
year  in  college,  where  he  was  a  member  of  the  Harvard 
class  of  1844,  he  had  chosen  history  as  his  life  work,  and, 
designing  to  combine  the  pursuit  of  literature  with  the  grati 
fication  of  his  love  of  Nature,  he  selected  as  his  particular 
subject " <  The  Old  French  War,'  —  that  is,  the  war  that  ended 
in  the  Conquest  of  Canada,  —  for  here,  as  it  seemed  to  me, 
the  forest  drama  was  more  stirring  and  the  forest  stage  more 
thronged  with  appropriate  actors  than  in  any  other  passage 
of  our  history.  It  was  not  till  some  years  later  that  I  en 
larged  the  plan  to  include  the  whole  course  of  the  American 
Conflict  between  France  and  England,  or  in  other  words,  the 
history  of  the  American  forest;  for  this  was  the  light  in 
which  I  regarded  it.  My  theme  fascinated  me,  and  I  was 
haunted  with  wilderness  images  day  and  night." 


280  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

No  one  of  our  American  historians  determined  upon  Iris 
career  and  selected  his  field  so  early  in  life,  and  no  one  of 
them  made  so  intelligent  and  broadly  planned  a  preparation 
for  his  chosen  work.  Irving  knew  Spain  and  Spaniards,  but 
could  not  know  the  primitive  inhabitants  of  the  West  Indies, 
nor  did  he  follow  the  track  of  Columbus ;  Prescott's  knowl 
edge  of  Spain,  as  of  Mexico  and  Peru,  was  derived  wholly 
from  books  or  conversation;  Bancroft's  tastes  did  not  lead 
him  to  study  the  frontier  of  his  time  where  could  be  observed 
with  slight  variation  the  chief  phases  of  Colonial  life ;  Motley 
knew  his  Netherlands  and  numbered  many  Netherlander 
among  his  friends,  but  he  never  saw  Spain,  and  apparently 
did  not  regard  a  first-hand  study  of  the  Spanish  character  as 
a  part  of  his  preparation.  Parkman,  on  the  other  hand, 
while  he  was  not  less  assiduous  in  the  pursuit  and  analysis 
of  documents,  devoted  extraordinary  pains  to  the  personal 
study  of  the  actual  phenomena  with  which  he  had  to  deal. 

The  scene  of  action  was  the  frontier  and  the  forest;  the 
actors :  French  and  English  adventurers  and  explorers,  bush 
rangers  and  pioneers,  missionaries  and  wild  Indians.  Real 
izing  the  relative  permanence  of  these  types  —  that  frontier 
life  and  colonial  life  were  essentially  the  same,  and  that  an 
identical  environment  acting  on  the  same  human  factors 
would  produce  in  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century  sub 
stantially  what  existed  in  the  eighteenth,  —  Parkman  not 
only  systematically  studied  these  phases  of  human  character 
where  they  could  be  found,  unsophisticated  by  modern  ideas, 
but  he  lived  with  the  people  themselves. 

He  had  already  familiarized  himself  with  the  wilder  parts 
of  New  England,  and  during  his  sojourn  in  Rome  in  1844, 
he  spent  some  days  in  a  Convent  of  the  Passionist  Fathers 
to  see  face  to  face  the  monk  and  devotee,  and  now  he  re 
solved  to  study  the  real  Indian  neither  bettered  nor  spoiled 
by  civilization.  In  the  St.  Louis  of  1846  he  would  still 
find  not  a  little  that  was  like  the  Montreal  of  1756,  Fort 
Laramie  would  reproduce  in  some  essentials  the  Machilli- 
mackinac  of  Pontiac's  time,  and  in  the  Oregon  pioneers  could 


FRANCIS  PARKMAN  281 

be  seen  the  counterparts  of  the  sturdy  settlers  of  the  forests 
of  Pennsylvania  and  Ohio;  the  French  half-breed  trappers 
and  guides  were  still  the  same.  This  experience,  the  most 
remarkable  in  his  course  of  self-training,  is  recounted  in  The 
Oregon  Trail. 

The  Indian  literature  of  the  day  was  prolific,  and  the  most 
popular  author  in  the  country  had  made  three  notable  con 
tributions  to  it.  Yet  the  Oregon  Trail  differs  essentially 
from  Irving 's  Tour  on  the  Prairies,  Astoria,  or  The  Adven 
tures  of  Captain  Bonneville,  for  it  not  only  records  the  vivid 
impressions  by  a  most  alert  observer  of  a  bygone  phase  of 
life,  but  it  is,  in  addition,  a  fragment  of  the  autobiography 
of  an  historian  enjoying  an  almost  unique  experience.  For 
to  Parkman  the  whole  excursion  was  a  journey  into  the  past; 
each  successive  stage  took  him  not  merely  further  west,  but 
further  back  in  time. 

He  was  on  the  prairies  about  five  months  in  all,  about  five 
weeks  of  which  he  spent  in  a  village  of  the  Ogillalah  Sioux. 
In  his  pursuit  of  these  Indians  and  his  sojourn  with  them, 
he  went  as  far  west,  following  in  part  the  Oregon  Trail,  as 
the  Black  Hills  in  Wyoming;  then,  turning  toward  the 
South,  he  went  past  Pike's  Peak  to  Pueblo,  and  homeward 
in  part  by  the  Santa  F<3  Trail. 

Pow-wows,  war  dances,  feasts,  buffalo  hunting,  Oregon 
trains,  Santa  F£  caravans  and  companies  of  frontier  troops 
on  the  march  to  New  Mexico  —  all  the  varied  spectacle  of  a 
life  now  gone  forever  in  this  country  passed  before  his  eyes 
and  was  indelibly  printed  upon  his  mind.  The  influence  of 
this  experience  can  be  traced  throughout  all  his  works,  and 
in  his  latest  volumes  he  recalls  incidents  of  this  summer. 
By  a  strange  fatality,  however,  a  course  of  life  that  has  re 
stored  many  invalids  to  health  nearly  cost  him  his  life,  and 
bequeathed  him  an  accumulation  of  infirmities  which  at 
tended  him  to  the  grave.  He  was  taken  ill  soon  after  leav 
ing  St.  Louis,  and  then,  and  later  on  during  renewed  attacks 
of  the  malady,  when  he  should  have  rested,  a  seemingly 
imperative  necessity  of  continued  exertion  overstrained  a 


282  ESS  A  YS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

system  by  nature  delicate  and  high-strung.  Thenceforth  he 
had  to  work  imprisoned  by  diseases  and  all  but  entire  loss  of 
sight. 

Upon  his  return,  while  in  search  of  health,  he  dictated 
from  his  notes  and  diary,  the  story  of  the  summer  to  his 
companion  in  the  journey,  Quincy  Adams  Shaw,  and  the 
publication  of  it  began  in  the  Knickerbocker  Magazine  in 
February,  1847,  with  the  title  The  Oregon  Trail,  or  a  Sum 
mer  Journey  out  of  Bounds.  It  was  republished  in  book 
form  in  1849,  when  the  publisher,  availing  himself  of  the 
California  excitement,  to  catch  the  eye,  enlarged  the  title 
into  The  California  and  Oregon  Trail,  being  Sketches  of 
Prairie  and  Rocky  Mountain  Life.  The  secondary  title  pre 
cisely  describes  the  contents  of  the  book  and  the  original 
name  Oregon  Trail  must  have  been  selected  in  1847  for  the 
same  reasons  which  led  the  publisher  in  1849  to  add  Cali 
fornia  to  the  title-page.  As  far  as  the  contents  go,  the  name 
Santa  Fd  Trail  would  have  been  equally  appropriate. 

Before  the  appearance  of  The  Oregon  Trail  in  book  form, 
Parkman  began  the  composition  of  the  Conspiracy  of  Pon- 
tiac.  In  the  midst  of  obstacles,  always  apparently  insur 
mountable,  and  for  long  stretches  actually  so,  with  heroic 
fortitude  he  kept  at  work  when  most  men  would  have  given 
up  in  despair.  For  many  years  he  was  unable  to  read  or 
write  for  more  than  five  minutes  at  a  time,  and  the  first  part 
of  Pontiac  was  written  at  the  rate  of  six  lines  a  day.  His 
courage  did  not  fail,  and  after  three  years  of  intermittent 
labor  the  completed  work  was  offered  to  the  public  (1851). 

With  wise  appreciation  of  his  own  powers  and  of  the  limi 
tations  under  which  he  labored,  he  had  tried  his  hand  on  an 
episode  of  his  main  theme,  the  final  struggle  of  the  Indian, 
after  the  collapse  of  the  power  of  France,  to  roll  back  the 
advancing  tide  of  English  civilization.  The  story  of  Pon 
tiac  required  neither  the  mass  of  reading  nor  the  critical  in 
sight  and  ripened  judgment  which  the  later  works  demanded. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  range  of  action  from  Philadelphia  to 
Mackinac,  the  varied  scenes  of  frontier  life  and  warfare  gave 


FRANCIS  PARKMAN  283 

an  ample  canvas  for  vivid  description  stamped  with  the  fresh 
impressions  of  his  western  travels  and  recent  sojourn  among 
the  Sioux.  In  the  earlier  chapters,  as  an  introduction  to  his 
subject,  he  takes  a  broad  survey  of  the  whole  history  of  New 
France,  sketching  in  outline  what  was  to  be  his  life  work. 

In  the  thirteen  years  that  follow  he  labored  on  under  the 
same  cruel  shackles,  varying  severer  studies  by  gardening 
and  by  writing  his  only  novel,  Vassal  Morton  (1856).  Of 
Vassal  Morton  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  its  chief  importance 
to-day  lies  in  its  reflection  of  Parkman's  character.  In  parts 
it  is  a  thinly  disguised  self-portrait.  Parkman  mentions  in 
several  of  his  prefaces  his  disabilities  in  a  purely  objective 
way,  just  as  he  recorded  the  other  conditions  of  his  work. 
In  the  narratives  there  is,  however,  no  odor  of  the  sick-room, 
no  feebleness;  the  artist's  all-embracing  memory  and  con 
structive  imagination  transport  him  to  the  woods,  and  the 
strain  of  the  effort  is  betrayed  only  by  a  certain  tenseness 
of  style.  But  in  Vassal  Morton  he  let  himself  out,  and 
under  the  mask  of  Morton's  agony  in  his  dungeon,  his  own 
sufferings  are  revealed. 

The  novel  is  full  of  sharply  drawn  portraits,  vivid  descrip 
tion  of  nature  and  lifelike  pictures  of  manners.  It  is  a  little 
melodramatic  in  plot,  rather  too  brilliant  in  conversation,  and 
unreal  at  critical  junctures,  but  it  is  interesting,  and  hardly 
deserved  oblivion.  Parkman  did  not  include  it  in  his  works, 
and  is  said  not  to  have  liked  to  hear  it  mentioned.  One  can 
not  help  feeling  that  as  he  attained  distinction  he  felt  a 
certain  shame  at  having  betrayed  his  feelings  even  in  that 
indirect  fashion  and  recovered  his  consistency  of  stoicism  by 
ignoring  this  single  lapse. 

In  the  introduction  to  The  Pioneers  of  ^France  in  the  New 
World  (1865)  Parkman  announces  his  plan  of  a  series  to  be 
devoted  to  "  the  attempt  of  Feudalism,  Monarchy,  and  Rome, 
to  master  a  continent,  where  at  this  hour,  half  a  million  bay 
onets  are  vindicating  the  ascendancy  of  a  regulated  free 
dom."  After  contrasting  in  a  few  paragraphs  of  compressed 
but  richly  colored  description  the  contending  civilizations,  he 


284  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

declares  the  method  of  historical  composition  which  he  has 
adopted.  His  aim  "was,  while  scrupulously  and  rigorously 
adhering  to  the  truth  of  facts,  to  animate  them  with  the  life 
of  the  past,  and,  so  far  as  might  be,  clothe  the  skeleton  with 
flesh.  Faithfulness  to  the  truth  of  history  involves  far  more 
than  a  research,  however  patient  and  scrupulous,  into  special 
facts.  The  narrator  must  seek  to  imbue  himself  with  the 
life  and  spirit  of  the  time.  He  must  study  events  in  their 
bearings  near  and  remote ;  in  the  character,  habits,  and  man 
ners  of  those  who  took  part  in  them.  He  must  be  as  it  were, 
a  sharer  or  a  spectator  of  the  action  he  describes. " 

In  rapid  succession  following  the  Pioneers  came  The  Jesuits 
in  1867,  The  Discovery  of  the  Great  West  in  1869,  The  Old 
Regime  in  Canada  in  1874,  Frontenac  in  1877,  Montcalm  and 
Wolfe  in  two  volumes  in  1884,  and  A  Half  Century  of  Con 
flict  also  in  two  volumes  in  1892. 

In  addition  to  these  labors,  no  mean  achievement  for  the 
most  vigorous  and  unhampered  mind,  Parkman  found  time 
to  write  a  considerable  body  of  magazine  articles  and  re 
views,  to  revise  in  succession  the  earlier  volumes  of  the 
series  and  in  the  case  of  The  Discovery  of  the  Great  West 
to  reconstruct  the  work  in  the  light  of  the  abundant  mate 
rials  on  La  Salle  which  were  inaccessible  to  him  when  it  was 
originally  written. 

A  detailed  criticism  of  these  works  will  hardly  be  expected 
in  this  place,  yet  something  may  well  be  said  as  to  their 
range  and  distinctive  features. 

Some  of  the  volumes,  owing  to  the  nature  of  the  subject, 
are  rather  a  collection  of  detached  narratives  than  a  con 
nected  story.  In  The  Pioneers,  for  example,  the  two  main 
themes  are  the  rivalry  of  the  French  and  Spaniards  for  Flor 
ida  and  the  explorations  of  Champlain,  but  both  parts  are 
appropriately  introduced  by  vivid  sketches  of  earlier  voyages 
and  explorations  such  as  those  of  De  Soto  and  Verrazano. 
To  The  Jesuits  is  prefixed  a  compact  monograph  on  the 
Algonquin  Indians  which  saves  the  narratives  in  the  main 
body  of  the  work  from  being  overloaded  with  explanatory 


FRANCIS  PARKMAN  285 

comment.  Most  varied  of  all  is  The  Half  Century  of  Con 
flict^  in  which  the  reader  ranges  from  Maine  to  Louisiana, 
and  follows  the  exploration  of  the  western  prairies.  It  is 
in  these  last  volumes,  in  those  on  Montcalm  and  Wolfe,  and 
in  Frontenac  that  the  history  of  the  English  Colonies  comes 
in  for  special  consideration. 

Parkman  belonged  to  the  narrative  school  of  historians, 
and  chose  to  pic^urejtheupast -rather  than  to  reason  about  it. 
In  his  conception  of  the  great  drama  of  two  rival  and  diverse 
civilizations  contending  for  the  mastery  of  the  New  World, 
in  his  nearness  to  the  action  and  his  personal  exploration  of 
the  scene,  and  not  least  in  the  varied  charm  of  his  story, 
Parkman  is  the  Herodotus  of  our  Western  World. 

Yet  he  does  not  altogether  refrain  from  drawing  the  lesson 
for  the  politician  or  renounce  philosophizing,  and  in  one  of 
his  volumes,  The  Old  Regime  in  Canada,  he  has  produced  an 
admirable  piece  of  institutional  or  social  history,  an  exami 
nation,  as  he  called  it,  of  "the  political  and  social  machine," 
which  is  a  tit  counterpart  and  supplement  to  De  Tocqueville's 
Ancien  Regime  en  France. 

The  most  distinctive  quality  of  Parkman 's  narratives  is 
picturesqueness.  The  action  is  set  in  a  scene  artistically 
reproduced  from  the  author's  careful  observation.  Know 
ing  his  human  agents  from  personal  study  of  the  type  as 
well  as  of  their  literary  memorials,  sensitive  to  all  the  varied 
aspects  of  nature,  and  familiar  with  each  locality,  he  visualizes 
the  whole  action  with  extraordinary  vividness.  It  passes  his 
eyes  like  a  panorama.  The  natural  scene  plays  no  such  part 
in  the  work  of  any  other  historical  writer,  and  the  search  for 
such  exquisite  pictures  of  wild  nature  in  America  as  abound 
in  his  pages  would  not  be  an  easy  one  even  in  our  voluminous 
literature  of  outdoor  life  and  nature  study.  In  illustration 
of  this  artistic  gift  his  descriptions  of  such  widely  diverse 
scenes  as  a  southern  swamp,  a  Canadian  winter,  or  a  prairie 
river  in  summer-time  may  be  given.  The  first  two  are  from 
The  Pioneers,  the  last  from  La  Salle.  "The  deep  swamp, 
where,  out  of  the  black  and  root-encumbered  slough,  rise 


286  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

the  huge  buttressed  trunks  of  the  southern  cypress,  the  gray 
Spanish  moss  drooping  from  every  bough  and  twig,  wrap 
ping  its  victims  like  a  drapery  of  tattered  cobwebs,  and 
slowly  draining  away  their  life ;  for  even  plants  devour  each 
other,  and  play  their  silent  parts  in  the  universal  tragedy  of 
nature."  —  "Here  the  self-exiled  company  were  soon  besieged 
by  the  rigors  of  the  Canadian  winter.  The  rocks,  the  shores, 
the  pine  trees,  the  solid  floor  of  the  frozen  river,  all  alike 
were  blanketed  in  snow,  beneath  the  keen  cold  rays  of  the 
dazzling  sun."  —  "They  glided  calmly  down  the  tranquil 
stream.  At  night,  the  bivouac,  —  the  canoes  inverted  on 
the  bank,  the  flickering  fire,  the  meal  of  bison  flesh  or  veni 
son,  the  evening  pipes,  and  slumber  beneath  the  stars;  and 
when  in  the  morning  they  embarked  again,  the  mist  hung 
on  the  river  like  a  bridal  veil;  then  melted  before  the  sun, 
till  the  glassy  water  and  the  languid  woods  basked  breathless 
in  the  sultry  glare." 

To  the  study  of  human  character  and  motives,  Parkman 
was  drawn  from  his  youth,  and  his  pages  are  filled  with 
sketches  and  portraits,  into  the  composition  of  which  went 
not  only  general  knowledge  of  human  nature,  but  intimate 
knowledge  of  the  individual  obtained  by  entering  into  his 
life  and  looking  out  upon  the  world  with  his  eyes.  That  he 
achieved  high  success  in  delineating  types  of  character  and 
ideals  far  different  from  his  own  is  evinced  by  the  number 
of  French  Canadian  scholars  and  Catholics  that  he  numbered 
among  his  friends  and  admirers.  Not  that  they  were  wholly 
satisfied  with  the  story  of  the  long  effort  to  plant  a  new 
France  in  North  America,  orthodox  and  loyal,  that  came 
from  the  clear-headed  New  Englander,  the  Puritan  rational 
ist  and  aristocratic  republican,  for  types  of  men  so  divergent 
cannot  write  each  other's  history  altogether  acceptably;  but 
to  win  each  other's  respect  and  to  spur  each  other  on  in  the 
noble  race  for  truth  was  no  mean  achievement. 

In  England  Parkman  is  not  infrequently  accorded  the  first 
place  among  American  historical  writers  for  his  rare  combi 
nation  of  exact  research  with  a  narrative  style  so  full  of  life 


FRANCIS  PARKMAN  287 

and  poetic  beauty.  On  the  continent,  however,  owing,  no 
doubt,  to  the  remoteness  of  his  theme,  and  to  the  fact  that 
Frenchmen  could  hardly  be  expected  to  find  in  the  story  of 
failure  and  loss  the  same  interest  that  the  story  of  triumph 
inspires  in  the  Englishman,  Parkman  has  never  attained  the 
popularity  which  came  to  Irving,  Prescott,  Bancroft,  and 
Motley.  Only  The  Pioneers  and  The  Jesuits  have  been 
translated  into  French,  and  only  these  two  and  The  Old 
Regime  into  German. 

It  is  perhaps  too  soon  to  attempt  an  estimate  of  the  prob 
able  permanence  of  Parkman' s  fame,  yet  one  or  two  factors 
in  the  problem  may  be  indicated.  The  breadth  of  his  prepa 
ration,  his  occasional  preservation  of  oraj^traditipn,  his  per 
sonal  knowledge  of  wild. life  and  of  the  American  Indian  such 
as  no  successor  can  ever  obtain  will  always  give  his  narra 
tives  in  some  measure  the  character  of  sources.  The  de 
velopment  of  the  science  of  ethnology,  for  example,  has 
antiquated  Prescott 's  Mexico  and  Peru  except  as  a  charm 
ing  reproduction  of  the  impressions  and  exaggeration  of  the 
Spanish  historians  of  the  Conquest;  but  Parkman  grew  up 
with  the  scientific  study  of  American  Ethnology,  was  one 
of  its  promoters,  and  in  a  large  measure  embodied  its  results 
in  his  work.  Making  as  conscientious  an  effort  as  ever  his 
torian  did  by  means  of  documents  to  understand  and  reclothe 
the  past  with  the  habiliments  of  life,  his  success  will  prove 
of  a  more  permanent  kind  than  that  of  Motley  or  Prescott, 
because  of  his  completer  equipment  for  a  realistic  grasp  of 
that  past  which  he  was  so  near  and  which  he  caught  as  it 
faded  away  forever.  Finally,  with  the  growth  of  Canada 
and  of  the  West,  the  number  of  people  for  whom  Parkman's 
histories  are  the  epic  of  the  founders  of  the  State  is  ever  in 
creasing.  It  is  hardly  rash,  then,  in  view  of  these  considera 
tions  and  of  the  rare  and  varied  charm  of  his  narrative  to 
conclude  that  for  a  far  longer  period  than  is  likely  to  be  the 
fortune  of  Prescott,  Motley,  or  Bancroft,  the  work  of  Francis 
Parkman  will  be  proof 

" '  gainst  the  tooth  of  time 
And  razure  of  oblivion." 


JAMES  ANTHONY  FROUDE 


. 


JAMES  ANTHONY  FROUDE1 

JAMES  ANTHONY  FROUDE  was  born  in  Dartington  rectory, 
Totness,  Devonshire,  April  23,  1818.  His  childhood  was 
spent  in  typically  English  surroundings  of  the  olden  time. 
His  father  was  archdeacon  of  Totness,  and  exercised  also  the 
functions  of  a  civil  magistrate.  He  was  remembered  in  after 
years  by  his  son  as  "  a  continually  busy,  useful  man  of  the 
world,  a  learned  and  cultivated  antiquary,  and  an  accom 
plished  artist."  Of  his  early  training  Froude  wrote:  "Our 
spiritual  lessons  did  not  go  beyond  the  catechism.  We  were 
told  that  our  business  in  life  was  to  work  and  to  make  an 
honorable  position  for  ourselves.  About  doctrine,  Evangeli 
cal  or  Catholic,  I  do  not  think  that  in  my  early  boyhood  I 
ever  heard  a  single  word,  in  church  or  out  of  it." 

He  went  to  Oxford  while  the  memory  of  his  brother,  Hur- 
rell  Froude,  one  of  the  most  brilliant  of  the  Tractarian  group, 
was  still  fresh.  He  had  already  "swallowed  such  antidotes 
to  Catholicism  "  as  would  be  derived  from  a  careful  reading 
of  Gibbon,  and  he  was  fortified  against  scepticism  by  Paley 
and  Grotius ;  but  as  yet  he  had  little  notion  of  the  Evangeli 
cal  wing  of  the  church.  Pilgrim? 's  Progress,  even,  he  never 
read  until  he  was  grown  up.  At  Oxford  he  seemed  to  the 
friends  of  his  brother  to  be  "  keeping  the  party  and  the  move 
ment  at  arm's  length."  Mozley  tells  us  that  "his  habits  and 
amusements  were  solitary,"  and  that  "he  combined  in  a  rare 
degree  self-confidence,  imagination,  and  inquiry."  Froude 
listened  to  Newman's  sermons  with  deep  interest,  read  Hume 
carefully,  and  found  himself  in  great  perplexity. 

His  confidence  in  his  Oxford  teachers  was  put  to  a  severe 

1  Published  in  The  Nation,  October  25,  1894,  as  an  obituary. 


292  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

strain  shortly  after  graduation  by  a  visit  to  the  family  of  an 
evangelical  clergyman  in  Ireland,  where  he  found  Christian- 
ity  to  be  "part  of  the  atmosphere  which  we  breathed."  He 
saw  there  the  genuine  fruits  of  the  Reformation  which  he 
had  been  taught  at  Oxford  "to  hate  as  rebellion."  His 
reverence  for  the  reformers  revived.  "  Fact  itself  was  speak 
ing  for  them.  .  .  .  Modern  history  resumed  its  traditionary 
aspect."  When  he  returned  to  Oxford  in  1842,  as  Fellow  of 
Exeter,  he  had  learned  "  that  equally  good  men  could  take 
different  views  in  theology,  and  Newmanism  had  ceased  to 
have  an  exclusive  interest  for  him." 

Feeling  unsettled  in  his  views,  he  "read  hard  in  modern 
history  and  literature,"  including  Carlyle,  Goethe,  Lessing, 
Neander,  and  Schleiermacher.  He  approached  modern  sci 
ence  through  The  Vestiges  of  the  Natural  History  of  Creation. 
"As  I  had  perceived  before,"  he  says,  "that  evangelicals 
could  be  as  saint-like  as  Catholics,  so  now  I  found  that  men 
of  the  highest  gifts  could  differ  from  both  by  whole  diameters 
in  the  interpretation  of  the  same  phenomena."  He  then  dis 
covered  that  the  Catholic  revival  in  Oxford  was  but  part  of 
the  general  movement  of  reaction  in  Europe. 

At  this  time  he  was  invited  by  Newman  to  contribute  to 
the  Lives  of  English  Saints.  His  reading  for  this  purpose 
took  him  into  a  world  where  "  the  order  of  nature  seems  only 
to  have  existed  to  give  holy  men  an  opportunity  of  showing 
their  superiority  to  material  conditions."  After  writing  one 
life  he  "had  to  retreat  from  his  occupation."  But  "the 
excursion  among  the  will-o'-the-wisps  of  the  spiritual  mo 
rasses"  did  not  leave  him  as  it  found  him.  "I  had  been 
taught  by  Newman  that  there  was  no  difference  in  kind 
between  the  saints'  miracles  and  the  miracles  of  the  Bible." 
The  alternative  probability  now  forced  itself  upon  him,  "  that 
all  supernatural  stories  were  legendary,  wherever  found," 
and  he  met  the  issue  with  courage  although  not  with  com 
posure.  His  distress  drew  from  him  a  cry  of  pain,  and  in 
the  mournful  reflections  of  The  Nemesis  of  Faith^  1848,  he 
revealed  to  the  world  his  mental  struggles. 


JAMES  ANTHONY  FROUDE  293 

The  work  was  widely  read,  and  received  the  censure  of  the 
Oxford  authorities.  In  later  years  Froude  referred  to  it  as 
"something  written  not  wisely,  in  which  heterodoxy  was 
flavored  with  sentimentalism."  To  this  sorrowing  Werther 
how  like  a  dash  of  cold  water  must  have  come  Carlyle's 
gruff  comment  that  "  he  should  burn  his  own  smoke  and  not 
trouble  other  people's  nostrils  with  it."  The  evidence  of 
Froude's  courage  is  to  be  found  in  his  actions  rather  than 
his  words.  "  I  found  myself  unfitted  for  a  clergyman's  posi 
tion  [he  was  in  deacon's  orders],  and  I  abandoned  it.  I  did 
not  leave  the  church.  I  withdrew  into  the  position  of  a  lay 
member,  in  which  I  have  ever  since  remained.  I  gave  up 
my  fellowship  and  I  gave  up  my  profession  with  the  loss  of 
my  existing  means  of  maintenance,  and  with  the  sacrifice  of 
my  future  prospects." 

He  became  acquainted  with  Carlyle  in  1849,  although  not 
intimately  so  until  1860.  His  relationship  to  Carlyle  is  the 
key  to  his  intellectual  life.  In  1884  he  wrote:  "I  had,  .  .  . 
from  the  time  I  became  acquainted  with  his  writings,  looked 
upon  him  as  my  own  guide  and  master  —  so  absolutely  that  I 
could  have  said :  Malim  err  are  cum  Platone  quam  cum  aliis 
bene  sentire ;  or,  in  Goethe's  words,  which  I  did  indeed 
often  repeat  to  myself :  Mit  deinem  Meister  zu  irren  ist  dein 
Gretvinn.  The  practice  of  submission  to  the  authority  of  one 
whom  one  recognizes  as  greater  than  one's  self  outweighs  the 
chance  of  occasional  mistake."  After  all  his  struggles  he 
was  to  take  a  position  toward  Carlyle  essentially  the  same  as 
that  of  Newman  toward  the  church,  so  pervading  still  was 
the  spirit  of  the  Oxford  Movement  in  the  air  he  breathed. 
Froude  now  turned  to  literature  for  support,  and  became  a 
frequent  contributor  to  the  Westminster  Review  and  to 
Frazer's  Magazine,  of  which  he  later  became  the  editor. 
The  first  two  volumes  of  his  History  of  England  appeared  in 
1856,  and  he  was  occupied  with  this  work  for  the  next  six 
teen  years. 

His  first  visit  to  the  United  States,  in  1872,  partook  of  the 
nature  of  a  political  mission.  He  delivered  lectures  to  en- 


294  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL  CRITICISM 

lighten  Americans  on  the  Irish  question.  Later,  he  trav 
elled  in  South  Africa,  Australia,  and  the  West  Indies.  He 
was  deeply  interested  in  the  preservation  of  the  empire,  and 
he  lamented  the  apathy  of  the  home  government  in  regard  to 
the  welfare  of  the  colonies,  whose  value  he  placed  in  the 
opportunities  they  offered  for  the  expansion  of  the  British 
people.  His  narratives  of  these  voyages  abound  in  glowing 
descriptions  of  nature,  and  melancholy  reflections  on  the  state 
of  politics  in  democracies. 

Like  Carlyle,  he  was  drawn  to  strong  men,  to  the  heroes ; 
and  his  biographies  of  Luther,  Bunyan,  and  Carlyle,  of 
Becket,  Caesar,  and  Beaconsfield,  are  among  the  most  suc 
cessful  and  characteristic  productions  of  his  pen.  Several 
volumes  of  essays,  by  the  great  range  of  their  subjects  and 
the  never-failing  interest  imparted  to  them,  bear  testimony 
to  the  versatility  of  his  mind. 

In  1892  Froude  was  appointed  Regius  professor  of  history 
at  Oxford,,  an  academic  honor  which  it  has  been  customary 
to  bestow  upon  men  who  would  adorn  the  position.  Actual 
teaching  or  lecturing  forms  a  relatively  small  part  of  a  Regius 
professor's  duties,  which  lie  rather  in  the  field  of  research 
and  authorship.  Froude 's  views  of  history  differed  widely 
from  those  of  Stubbs  and  Freeman,  his  immediate  predeces 
sors.  Freeman  had  for  years  been  a  relentless  critic  of  his 
work,  and  had  gone  so  far  in  one  of  his  published  lectures 
as  to  hold  up  Froude,  in  a  thinly  disguised  description,  in 
cutting  terms,  as  an  example  of  all  that  was  objectionable 
in  historical  writing.  Not  unnaturally,  lively  protest  was 
heard  against  the  appointment.  Yet  Froude  deserved  the 
distinction  better  than  three-quarters  of  his  predecessors. 

History  for  Froude  was  the  drama  of  human  life.  Like 
the  drama,  its  main  value  is  not  scientific  but  ethical.  "  It 
is  a  voice  for  ever  sounding  across  the  centuries  the  laws  of 
right  and  wrong.  .  .  .  Justice  and  truth  alone  endure  and 
live.  Injustice  and  falsehood  may  be  long-lived,  but  dooms 
day  comes  at  last  to  them,  in  French  revolutions  and  other 
terrible  ways."  Another  lesson  is,  that  "we  should  draw 


JAMES  ANTHONY  FROUDE  295 

no  horoscopes;  that  we  should  expect  little,  for  what  we 
expect  will  not  come  to  pass.  Revolutions,  reformations  — 
those  vast  movements  into  which  heroes  and  saints  have 
flung  themselves,  in  the  belief  that  they  were  the  dawn  of 
the  millennium  —  have  not  borne  the  fruit  which  they  looked 
for.  Millenniums  are  still  far  away." 

History  should  be  true  to  life;  it  can  only  approximate 
truth  to  past  fact.  "  If  the  drama  is  the  grandest  when  the 
action  is  the  least  explicable  by  laws,  because  then  it  best 
resembles  life,  then  history  will  be  the  grandest  also  under 
the  same  conditions."  "For  the  mere  hard  purposes  of  his 
tory,  the  Iliad  and  the  Odyssey  are  the  most  effective  books 
ever  written."  "Wherever  possible,  let  us  not  be  told 
about  this  man  or  that.  Let  us  hear  the  man  himself  speak, 
let  us  see  him  act,  and  let  us  be  left  to  form  our  own  opinions 
about  him."  "The  supreme  excellence  of  the  Elizabethan 
literature  is  in  its  purely  objective  character;  and  the  most 
perfect  English  history  which  exists  is  to  be  found,  in  my 
opinion,  in  the  historical  plays  of  Shakspere.  .  .  .  Shak- 
spere's  object  was  to  exhibit  as  faithfully  as  he  could  the 
exact  character  of  the  great  actors  in  the  national  drama  — 
the  circumstances  which  surround  them,  and  the  motives, 
internal  and  external,  by  which  they  were  influenced.  To 
know  this  is  to  know  all.  .  .  .  No  such  directness  of  in 
sight,  no  such  breadth  of  sympathy,  has  since  been  applied  to 
the  writing  of  English  history." 

Froude  considered  a  "constructive  philosophy  of  history 
impossible  as  yet;  for  a  long  time  to  come  study  must  be 
confined  to  analysis."  He  "objected  to  all  historical  theories 
as  calculated  to  vitiate  the  observation  of  facts  without  which 
such  speculations  are  not  worth  the  paper  they  are  written 
upon."  "Neither  history  nor  any  other  knowledge  can  be 
obtained  except  by  scientific  methods."  He  was  under  no 
illusions  in  regard  to  himself.  Three  years  ago  he  wrote: 
"For  the  rest,  I  do  not  pretend  to  impartiality.  ...  In 
every  conclusion  which  we  form,  in  every  conviction  which 
is  forced  upon  us,  there  is  still  a  subjective  element.  .  .  . 


296  ESSAYS  IN  HISTORICAL   CRITICISM 

For  myself  I  can  say  that  I  have  discriminated  with  such 
faculty  as  I  possess.  I  have  kept  back  nothing.  I  have  con 
sciously  distorted  nothing  which  conflicts  with  my  own  views. 
I  have  accepted  what  seems  sufficiently  proved.  I  have 
rejected  what  I  can  find  no  support  for  save  in  hearsay  or 
prejudice." 

Froude  wrote  history  as  he  conceived  it  with  a  power 
rarely  equalled.  His  pages  pulse  with  life.  But  though  he 
drew  from  sources  of  the  highest  value,  many  of  them  never 
before  utilized,  he  lacked  a  sound  critical  method  of  dealing 
with  them.  In  this  respect  his  later  volumes  show  a  marked 
improvement  over  the  earlier  ones.  Unbiassed  perception 
seems  at  times  to  have  been  simply  beyond  his  powers ;  the 
facts  of  his  own  narrative  he  often  saw  as  no  one  else  saw 
them.  Objective  description  he  professed  to  aim  at,  but 
rarely  attained,  for  he  approached  his  material  too  much  in 
the  spirit  of  an  artist.  In  his  pictures  the  shadows  are  too 
deep  and  the  lights  are  too  richly  glowing. 

A  sentimentalist  by  nature,  he  was  deficient  in  sobriety 
and  poise  of  judgment,  and  he  lacked  the  patience  for  accu 
racy  in  details.  He  had  little  interest  in  modern  social  or 
political  science,  and  to  the  reader  of  the  present  day  one  of 
the  most  serious  deficiencies  of  his  work  is  its  failure  to  give 
adequate  attention  to  the  constitutional  and  economic  aspects 
of  the  period.  Yet,  after  all  deductions,  the  History  remains 
an  imposing  contribution  to  our  knowledge  of  what  its  author 
believed  "the  greatest  achievement  in  English  history,  the 
'  breaking  the  bands  of  Rome  '  and  the  establishment  of  spir 
itual  independence ;  "  and  even  when  for  the  student  it  shall 
have  been  displaced  by  the  work  of  some  one  more  largely 
endowed  with  the  indispensable  qualifications  of  an  historian, 
it  will  still  have  an  enduring  position  in  the  literature  of  the 
English  people. 


INDEX 


INDEX 


Adams,  H.  B.,  246  n.,  252  n. 

Adams,  J.,  161. 

Advance,  The,  on  Whitman,  46  n.,  54  n. 

Alexander  VI.,  Bulls  of,  196-200. 

American  Board,  the  officials  distrust 
Spalding's  narrative,  23  ;  claims  of, 
27. 

Applegate,  J.,  on  emigration  of  1843, 
92  ;  on  Whitman,  ib. 

Ashburton,  Lord,  14,  68  n.,  82  n. 

Ashburton  Treaty,  14,  82  n.,  94. 

Atkinson,  Rev.  G.  H.,  first  missionary 
of  the  Home  Missionary  Soc.  in  Ore 
gon,  17  ;  silent,  before  1865,  as  to  poli 
tical  services  of  Whitman  17,  18,  20; 
brings  Spalding's  story  east,  16, 
31 ;  35. 

Azurara,  175  ;  on  Prince  Henry's  aims, 
176-177. 


B 


Badajos,  Congress  of,  229. 

Bancroft,  George,  114,  229,  230  n.,  278, 
280,  287. 

Bancroft,  H.  H.,  his  Oregon  quoted, 
28  n.,  29  n.,  64  n. ;  characterized,  41  n. 

Barros,  his  Da  Asia,  trans,  into  German, 
181,  181  n.;  error  of,  194 n. 

Barrows,  his  Oregon,  1  n. ;  character 
ized,  40-42 ;  his  shuffling  on  nego 
tiations  of  Sir  Geo.  Simpson,  82  n. 

Beck,  C.  D.,  247,  266. 

Biyhw  Papers,  The,  227. 

Bollan,  W.,  I79u. 

"  Brief  of  Argument"  Hamilton's,  154- 
1 56. 

Brouillet,  Rev.  J.  B.  A.,  22,  28,  29. 

Browne,  J.  Ross,  23. 

Buchanan,  J.,  231  ff. 


Bull,  The,  of  Clement  V.,  1344,  194  n. ; 
Martin  V.,  194  u. ;  Eugene  VI.,  1443, 
ibid.}  Nicolas  V.,  1452,  194;  1454, 
178-179;  Sixtus  IV.,  1481,  195;  Al 
exander  VI.,  May  3, 1493, 194 ;  May  4, 
199;  Julius  II.,  1506,  203;  Leo  X., 
1514,  195  n.,  203. 

Burgess,  J.  W.,  48. 

Burgh's  Disquisitions,  133,  135. 

Burnett,  P.  H.,  on  emigration  of  1843, 
92  ;  on  Whitman,  ibid. 

Butterworth,  H.,  44. 


Cabral,  Instructions  to,  201. 

Calhouu,  J.  C.,  on  Mexican  Question, 

233  n.,  234,  235,  240,  241  n. 
Cantilo,  J.  M.,  translator  of  Federalist, 

161. 

Carlyle,  T.,  293,  294. 
Catholic  World,  The,  34  n.,  35  n. 
Catlin,  G.,  Account  of  Flathead  mission 

to  St.  Louis,  105. 
Chateaubriand,  277. 
Chenier,  M.  J.,  on  Madison  and  The 

Federalist,  160. 
Citizenship,  honorary  of  France,  159- 

160. 

Clement,  V.,  Bull  of,  194  n. 
Code  de  I'llumanite,  le,  116,  166. 
Coffin,  C.  C.,  42. 
Comte,  245  n. 
Congregationalist,    The,   8  n.,  32,  33  n., 

52. 

Cooper,  J.  F.,  278. 
Craighead,  J.  G.,  his  Story  of  Marcus 

Whitman,  35,  44-46,  78,  81. 
Creighton,  M.,  259. 
Criticism,  modern    historical,   rise  of, 

250. 


300 


INDEX 


d'Albon,  Comte,166. 

Dart,  Anson,  Supt.  of  Ind.  Aff.  in  Or., 
reports  on  the  Whitman  Massacre  ; 
silence  about  political  services,  19  ; 
falsely  accused  by  Spalding,  62  n.- 
63  n. 

Demarcation  Line,  193-217  ;  recent 
books  on,  193n. ,  location  of,  at  100 
leagues  west  of  Azores,  204  ;  deter 
mination  of,  209  ff . ;  influence  on 
Magellan's  voyage,  206;  attitude  of 
English  on,  214-215  ;  of  French, 
215-216. 

Doria,  Expedition  of,  176. 

Dove,  A.,  246  n.,  252  n.,  254  n.,  268  n. 

Dox,  Virginia,  52  n. 

Drake,  S.  A.,  43. 

Dunn,  J.  P.,  Jr.,  43. 

Dye,  E.  E.,  her  McLoughlin  and  Old 
Oregon,  49. 

E 

Eells,  Gushing,  endorses  Walker's  ace. 
of  Whitman's  journey,  58;  silence, 
before  1865,  about  political  services 
of  Whitman,  20,  42  ;  letter  of  May, 
1866,  23;  examined,  73-75;  derived 
from  Spalding,  ib. ;  affidavit  in  1882, 
69-70;  examined,  71-73. 

Eells,  Myron,  29;  his  defence  of  the 
Whitman  legend,  37  ;  quoted,  39  ;  95. 

Eggleston,  E.,  on  Whitman  story,  51  n. 

Emigration  of  1 843,  real  causes  of,  92- 
93  ;  not  organized  by  Whitman,  95- 
96. 

Emmius,  Ubbo,  166. 

Eugene  IV.,  Bull  of,  194  n. 

Evans,  E.,  36 ;  conclusions  as  to  Whit 
man  legend,  38  and  104. 

Executive  Document  37,  8,  12,  27 ;  char 
acter  of,  29-31,  34-35. 


Fairbank,  J.  W.,  54. 

Farnam,  C.  H.,  43  n. 

Farnham,  T.  J.,  Travels  in  Oregon,  85. 

Federal   Government,  early  works  on, 

165-167. 
Federalist,  The,  authorship  of,  113  ff.; 


in  France,  159-161  ;  in  Germany, 
161-162;  Portuguese  translation  in 
Brazil,  161  ;  Spanish  trans,  in  Argen 
tine,  161;  the  structure  of,  117-118. 

Felice,  116,  166. 

Fichte,  247. 

Fisheries,  The,  not  a  subject  of  nego 
tiation  in  1842-3,  82. 

Fiske,  John,  and  the  Whitman  Story, 
51  ;  222. 

Flatheads,  mission  to  St.  Louis,  62, 105. 

Ford,  P.  L.,  criticism  of  his  discussion 
of  the  authorship  of  The  Federalist, 
149  ff. 

Freeman,  E.  A.,  166  n.,  294. 

Froude,  J.  A.,  early  life,  291  ;  at  Oxford, 
291-292  ;  his  relation  to  the  Tract- 
arians,  292 ;  his  Ne7nesis  of  Faith, 
292;  relation  toward  Carlyle,  293; 
travels,  293-294  ;  Professor  at  Oxford, 
294;  views  of  history,  294-296;  on 
Shakspere,  295,  on  the  Iliad  and 
Odyssey,  295 ;  his  characteristics  as 
an  historian,  296. 


Gaffarel,  P.,  222. 

Gardiner,  S.  K.,  259. 

Gatterer,  265  n. 

Geiger,  W.,  37  ;  his  account  of  Whit 
man'  s  journey,  66 ;  proofs  of  its  in 
correctness,  67-68. 

Giesebrecht,  254  n.,  272. 

Gillette,  P.  W.,  interview  with  Mrs. 
Lovejoy,  106-107. 

Gillies,  J.,  166. 

Gomez,  Diogo,  180,  185. 

Gordy,  W.  F.,  48  n.,  51  n. 

Gray,  W.  H.,  his  Flistory  of  Oregon,  7, 
9,  origin  of,  31  ;  on  Whitman,  34; 
characterized,  64 ;  quoted,  27,  28 ; 
proofs  of  his  untrustworthiness  as  a 
witness,  63-64  ;  his  version  of  story  of 
Whitman's  ride,  9-13  ;  arts,  in  As 
toria  Gazette,  31  ;  affidavit  as  to 
Whitman  legend,  32  ;  letter  on  Whit 
man's  journey,  58. 

Greeley,  H.,  interview  with  Whitman, 
85.  * 

Griffis,  W.  E.,  49. 

Grotius,  216. 


INDEX 


301 


H 

Hakluyt,  R.,  209  n. ;  on  Demarcation 
1  Line,  214. 

Hall  of  Fame,  vote  for  Whitman  in,  4. 

Hamilton,  A.,  made  a  citizen  of  France, 
160;  disclaims  authorship  of  No.  54 
of  The  Federalist,  128  ;  his  lists,  114- 
115,  117. 

Hamilton,  J.  C.,  on  authorship  of  The 
Federalist,  114,  125. 

Henry,  The  Navigator,  173-189  ;  earli 
est  sources  on,  174  ff. ;  lives  of,  174  n. ; 
aims,  175-181;  character,  187-189; 
donations,  185  ;  activities,  187. 

Hermann,  G.,  247,  266. 

Hines,  Rev.  H.  K.,  on  Whitman  legend 
in  1868  and  1899,  33. 

Hinman,  A.,  on  Spalding,  28  n. 

History,  influence  on  19th  century 
thought,  245 ;  opportunity  in,  for 
American  writers,  277  ;  essentials  of 
sound  method  in,  255. 

Home  Missionary,  The,  correspondence 
in,  from  Oregon,  23  n. 

Hudson's  Bay  Company,  possessory 
rights  of,  26-27  ;  charged  with  insti 
gating  Whitman  Massacre,  31. 

Humboldt,  A.  von,  on  location  of  De 
marcation  Line,  204,  216;  misinter 
prets  Seneca,  223  ;  on  Ranke,  258. 


Irving,  W.,  278,  280,  281,  287. 


Jefferson,  his  Notes  on  Virginia,  119. 
Juan,  J.,  on  Demarcation  Line,  213  n. 
Julius  II.,  Bull  of,  203. 

K 

Kent,  Chancellor,  121, 130, 144-145, 151. 
Kiesselbach,  W.,  on  The  Federalist,  162. 


Lamb,  Martha  J.,  41  n. 

Lane,  Joseph,  territorial  delegate  from 

Or.,  on  Whitman,  20. 
Laurie,  T.,  38,  64. 
Leo  X.,  Bull  of,  195  n.,  203. 


Leo  II.,  256-257. 

Lincoln,  J.  L.,  266  n. 

Lodge,   H.  C.,   on  authorship   of,  The 

Federalist,  113-115. 
Lovejoy,  A.  L.,  12,   17,  on  Whitman's 

journey,  76-77,  106-109. 

M 

McMaster,  J.  B.,  7  n.,  48  n. 

Macaulay,  257-258;  his  popularity  in 
Germany,  259. 

Madison,  J.,  his  account  of  the  writing 
of  Nos.  18,  19,  and  20,  of  The  Feder 
alist,  claims  No.  54  ;  made  a  citizen  of 
France,  160 ;  studies  in  Federal 
Government,  165-169. 

Magellan,  origin  of  his  voyage,  206- 
207  ;  profits  of,  208. 

Marshall,  W.  I.,  8  n.,  32  n. ;  his  efforts  to 
arrest  the  spread  of  the  Whitman 
Legend,  51  ;  103. 

Martin  V.,  Pope,  alleged  Bull  of,  194  n. 

Mexico,  proposed  absorption  of,  strength 
of  movement,  235  ff. 

Missionary  Herald,  The,  3,  37. 

Moluccas,  the,  210-211. 

"  Monitory,"  Madison's  use  of,  133. 

Montgomery,  D.  H.,  44,  51. 

Morris,  C.,  48. 

Motley,  J.  L.,  278,  280,  287. 

Mowry,  W.  A.,  his  Marcus  Whitman, 
49-50  ;  his  text-book,  48  ;  54;  71,  86  ; 
ignores  adverse  evidence,  50,  96. 

Miiller,  J.  v.,  251,  256. 

Munoz,  250  n. 

N 

Newman,  J.  H.,  292. 

Nicolas  V.,  Bull  of,  178-179. 

Niebuhr,  B.  G.,  247,  277. 

Nixon,  0.  W.,  his  How  Marcus  Whit 
man  Saved  Oregon,  46-47 ;  his  la 
bors  to  spread  the  story,  47 ;  arts,  in 
Chicago  Inter-Ocean,  54  n. 

o 

Old  Testament,  historical  criticism  of, 

250  n.,  256. 

Order  of  Christ,  The,  182  n. 
Oregon  Territory,  no  crisis  in  fate  of,  in 


302 


INDEX 


1842  or  1843,  68 ;  not  in  danger  of  be 
ing  ceded  to  England,  78-79  ;  public 
opinion  on,  in  1842-43,  ibid. ;  public 
not  ignorant  of,  84-85. 

Oregon  Trail,  The,  Parkraan's,  281,282. 

Outlook,  The,  52. 


Palmer,  Joel,  his  account  of  Whitman 
in  1845,  18. 

Parker,  H.  W.,  18  n.,  54  n. 

Parker,  S.,  3,  85. 

Parkman,  F.,  early  life  and  tastes,  289  ; 
his  preparation,  280-282;  ill-health, 
282-283 ;  his  aim  as  an  historian, 
284;  characteristics,  285-286;  his 
works,  282-287 ;  his  fame  abroad, 
286-287;  permanence  of  his  fame, 
287. 

Pattison,  M.,  266  n. 

Payne,  E.  J.,  223. 

Peurose,  President,  relies  on  J.  R.  Wil 
son's  mistranslation  of  Saint-Amant, 
22  n. ;  his  efforts  to  diffuse  the  Whit 
man  legend,  51 ;  efforts  to  save  it, 
54  n. 

Philippines,  The,  retained  by  Spain, 
211 ;  part  of  Spanish  America,  211  ; 
transferred  to  Eastern  Hemisphere, 
211-212. 

Polk,  President,  diary  of,  230;  brings 
on  Mexican  War,  229;  his  policy, 
230-242. 

Polybius,  143  n.,  166. 

Poore,  B.  P.,  81  n. 

Portuguese  Discoveries,  Beazley  on, 
174  n. 

Prescott,  W.  H.,  278,  287. 

Price,  W.,  260  n. 

Prudential  Committee  of  the  American 
Board,  56. 


R 


Ranke,  L.  V.,  245-274;  bibliography 
of,  260  n. ;  centenary  of,  245  ;  early 
interests,  246  ;  first  teaching,  248  ;  as 
a  teacber,  253-255  ;  his  intellectual 
attitude,  258  ;  methods  of  criticism, 
250;  on  principles  of  history,  255; 
his  exploration  of  sources,  250-251  ; 


History  of  the  Popes,  why  popular 
in  England,  259  n.  ;  his  chief  works, 
259 ;  History  of  the  World,  260 ;  his 
seminary,  first  announcement  of,  268 ; 
his  account  of  it,  269-273 ;  von  Sybel 
on,  273  ;  his  disciples,  259 ;  Waitz  on, 
273-274. 

Raumer,  K.  von,  suggests  practical 
courses  in  history,  254,  268. 

Recollections  as  a  source  of  history, 
71  and  note. 

Red  River  Colony  in  Oregon,  placed  in 
the  wrong  year  in  Whitman  Legend, 
60-61. 

Roscher,  W.,  258. 


Sabliere,  Trudaine  de  la,  translator  of 
The  Federalist,  159  ;  death  of,  161  n. 

Sagres,  supposed  School  of,  1 85. 

Saint-Amant,  de,  mentions  Whitman  in 
1854,  21-22  ;  passage  translated,  106  ; 
his  account  probably  based  on  Brouil- 
let,  22. 

Schouler,  J.,  229  n. 

Schurz,  C.,  43  n. 

Scott,  Sir  Walter,  249,  277. 

Scudder,  H.  E.,  40,  42. 

Seminaries,  historical,  origin  of,  265- 
268. 

Seminaries,  philological,  266-267. 

Seneca,  misinterpretation  of,  by  Roger 
Bacon,  201 ;  by  others,  222-224  ;  his 
prophecy,  224. 

Simpson,  Sir  George,  his  negotiations 
in  Washington,  according  to  Spalding 
in  1843,  14;  in  fact,  in  1853,  84;  re 
lation  to  the  Whitman  Legend,  74, 82 ; 
genesis  of  the  fiction,  82-84. 

Slavery,  African,  sanctioned  by  Nicolas 
V.,  194-195. 

Slave  Trade,  early  Portuguese,  188, 
195  11. 

Souza  Holstein,  Marquis  de,  174  n., 
175  n.,  185  n. 

Spalding,  Rev.  H.  H.,  goes  as  mission 
ary  to  Oregon  Indians,  3 ;  recalled  ; 
characterized,  28  ;  charges  Whitman 
Massacre  to  Jesuits  and  Hudson's 
Bay  Co.,  28-29 ;  his  story  of  Whit 
man's  ride  first  told  in  1864, 101-103; 


INDEX 


303 


as  first  published  by  him  in  The 
Pacific,  1865,  9-15;  proofs  that  it 
was  new  in  1864,  15-23,  102;  makes 
no  reference  to  Whitman's  having 
"saved"  Oregon  before  1864,  17; 
unaware  in  1846  that  Oregon  had 
been  "saved,"  18-19;  garbles  docu 
ments,  61-62;  proofs  of  his  untruth- 
fulness,  62-63 ;  his  memorial  to 
Congress,  100-101. 

Sparks,  E.  E.,  49. 

Sparks,  J.,  252  n. 

"  Sphere,  enlarge  the,"  Madison's  use 
of,  136. 

Stanyan,  J.,  167. 

Stenzel,  248,  272. 

Stern,  A.,  259  n. 

Stevens,  I.  I.,  Gov.  of  Washington  Ter 
ritory,  on  Whitman,  20. 

Stockton,  R.,  his  list  of  authors  of  The 
Federalist,  128  n. 

Stubbs,  259. 

Strauss,  D.  F.,  on  Ranke,  257  n. 

Stuckenberg,  255  n. 

Sybel,  Von,  on  Ranke's  Seminary,  273. 

"  Syllabus  of  The  Federalist,"  154-156. 


Temple,  Sir  W.,  116,  167. 

Thierry,  Aug.,  245  n.,  278. 

Thomas,  A.  C.,  48. 

Thompson,   D.   P.,  reports    Lovejoy's 

account  of  Whitman,  108-109. 
Thornton,  J.  Quinn,  35  n. 
Tordesillas,  Treaty  of,  202. 
Transylvanus,    Max.,    on    Magellan's 

voyage,  206. 
Treat,  S.  B.,  Secretary  of  the  A.  B.  C. 

F.   M.,  on   C.  Eells'  letter  and  on 

Whitman's    journey,   25 ;    tells    the 

Spalding  story  at  the  meeting  of  the 

Am.  Board  in  1866,  26. 
Trist,  N.  P.,  229  ;  recalled,  230 ;  makes 

treaty,  237. 
Tyler,  L.  G.,  43 ;  on  Whitman,  80. 

u 

Ulloa,  A.  de,  on  Demarcation   Line, 
213. 


Vassal  Morton,  Parkman's  novel,  279, 

283. 
Venetian   Relations,   251  ff. ;    influence 

of,  on  Ranke's  style,  252. 
Victor,   Mrs.  F.  F.,  36  n. ;  quoted,  28, 

34;  interview  with  H.  H.  Spalding, 

36  n.,  37  ;  on  Spalding's  appeal  to  Dr. 

Craighead,    81  n. ;    contributions    to 

Bancroft's    History  of    the     Pacific 

States,  36  n. 
Von  Hoist,  35. 

W 

Waitz,  G.,  270 ;  on  historical  semina 
ries,  265  n. ;  on  Ranke's,  273-274. 

Walker,  E.,  19,  23;  diary  and  letter  of, 
on  Whitman's  journey,  56-58 ;  on 
Spalding's  falsehood,  63  n. 

Webster,  Daniel,  fictitious  interview  of, 
with  Whitman,  first  printed  in  1864, 
15 ;  earliest  version,  101-103 ;  account 
of,  in  Spalding's  arts.,  13,  14;  ficti 
tious  character  proved,  82-84 ;  alleged 
tribute  to  Whitman,  82  n. 

Weed,  G.  L.,  53. 

White,  Elijah,  M.D.,  letters  garbled  by 
Spalding,  61-62 ;  his  commission, 
67  ;  conducts  emigration  of  1842,  67  ; 
75  ;  confused  with  Whitman,  96-97. 

Whitman,  John,  descendants  of,  43  n. 

Whitman,  Marcus,  M.  D.,  enlists  as 
missionary  to  Oregon  Indians,  3 ; 
legend  of,  summary  of,  6-7 ;  true 
history  of,  99,-100 ;  narratives  of 
Spalding  and  Gray,  9-15 ;  alleged 
causes  of  his  journey  examined,  67- 
68 ;  real  cause,  55  ;  his  real  errand  in 
Washington,  77-78  ;  was  without 
significance  or  results,  78-79  ;  silence 
of  contemporaries,  79-81 ;  why  he 
went  there  first,  98-99  ;  his  own  ac 
count  of  his  journey,  86  ;  of  his  plans, 
87 ;  his  subsequent  views  of  what  he 
accomplished,  97-98  ;  his  fictitious 
interview  with  Webster,  first  pub 
lished  in  1864,  15,  102-103;  vouched 
for  by  Gray  under  oath,  32  n. ;  rela 
tion  to  the  emigration  of  1843,  89- 
97  ;  confused  with  Dr.  White,  96-97  ; 
obituary  sketch  of,  in  Missionary 


304 


INDEX 


Herald  in  1848,  3;  vote  for,  in  Hall 
of  Fame,  4. 

Whitman,  Mrs.,  letters  on  Whitman's 
journey,  59-60. 

Whitman,  P.  B.,  37,  43  n. ;  his  account 
of  Whitman's  journey,  65-66. 

Whitman,  The  Legend  of  Marcus,  criti 
cisms  of,  54  n. 

Whitman  College,  relation  of  Whitman 
story  to  its  endowment,  52  n. 


Whitman  Day  celebrated,  52-53. 

Wilken,  253  n.,  265  n. 

Wilson,  J.  R.,  distorts  meaning  of  Saint- 

Amant,  21  n.,  22  n. 
Wolf  F.  A.,  250  n.,  266,  277. 


Zachrey,   J.,  letter  on  Whitman,  93- 
94 ;  interpolated  by  Spalding,  94-95. 


A  if? 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 


LOAN  DEPT. 


This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


REC'D  LD 


OCT25'64-3PM 


14 '66 -10  AM 


LOAN  DEP 


REC'D  LD 


MftY5    '65 -10  AM 


1PR    119718.0 


,2571,$AM'37 


REC'D  LD  ,  MAI 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


LD  2lA-60m-4,'64 
(E4555slO)476B 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


